June 2015 - The Party of Principle

The Dark Side of the State
by Kevin L. Frederickson
The following speech was
made by Kevin L Frederickson
at the May LPDC General
Meeting.
Tonight I would like to speak
to you about something of
truly tremendous importance:
The Wizard of Oz. This week is
the birthday of Frank Baum, author of The Wonderful Wizard
of Oz. According to theory, the story is a metaphor about
politics in the US during the populist era in the 1890s. The
populists were associated with the “silverites”. The silverites
were advocates of free
silver, also known as
bimetallism; they wanted to
return the silver dollar to its
1830s value and make it
equal to the gold dollar - by
law.
Garet Garrett wrote about all of
this in his novel The Driver,
which some claim inspired Ayn
Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.
The silverites weren’t the only
ones who believed that
government makes all things
possible, and that if you want
something to happen, all you
need to do is make a law. As
Garrett observes, “Naive trust in
the power of words to command
reality is found in all mass
delusions.”
According to the Wizard of Oz metaphor theory, Frank Baum
was a silverite. In his book, Dorothy represents the common
man; the Scarecrow is the farmer; the Tin Man is the factory
worker; and the Cowardly Lion is William Jennings Bryan.
(By the way, I read about all of this on the internet, so it must
be true.) The yellow brick road symbolizes the gold standard;
their journey represents the march of Coxey's army. And “Oz”
is a reference to the gold ounce.
Sounds like a great idea. But
at the time the silver dollar
was worth only half as much
as the gold dollar. The only
possible result of this policy
was inflation - debasement
of the currency. But then
again, that was the whole purpose of the scheme. There was a
depression that began in 1893 which is usually attributed to
the inflationary policies of the silverites.
A year later, a man named Jacob Coxey led a group of
populists in a march from Ohio to Washington DC to protest
unemployment. The Coxeyites wanted the government to give
them jobs. Coxey was an interesting guy, and by interesting I
mean nutty as a fruitcake - over the rainbow, in keeping with
our Wizard of Oz theme. He was also interested in monetary
policy. To give you an idea of just how interested, he named
his son “Legal Tender”. It was a big issue at the time; William
Jennings Bryan later won the democrat party presidential
nomination on a platform of free silver.
This is all the more fascinating when you consider the
connection between the movie The Wizard of Oz and Pink
Floyd's album Dark Side of the Moon. If you play them at the
same time, the album synchronizes with the movie (Again, I
read it on the internet; must be true.) For example, the lyrics
“balanced on the biggest wave” coincide with the scene where
Dorothy is balancing on the fence. Drummer Nick Mason
Page 1
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
denies all of this; he once said in an interview that Dark Side
of the Moon has nothing to do with The Wizard of Oz - it was
actually all based on The Sound of Music. Obviously a coverup.
I know what you’re all thinking: if there’s a connection
between The Wizard of Oz and the free silver issue, and also a
connection between The Wizard of Oz and Dark Side of the
Moon, might there possibly be a connection between Dark
Side of the Moon and the silver debate? For example, one of
the songs on the album is entitled Money. That doesn't count;
it's too obvious. I dug a little deeper, so you don’t have to because that’s the kind of guy I am. You’re welcome.
June 2015
soon forget. I would have sicked Toto on him, like Chopper in
Stand by Me.
But our “heroes” didn’t seem the least bit bothered by the
Wizard’s deception. This is sort of understandable in the
Lion's case; he’s too cowardly. The Scarecrow doesn’t have a
brain, so he doesn’t have a clue what’s going on. Tin Man, on
the other hand - you got no excuse.
But at the same time we learn the Wizard isn’t as powerful as
we believed, we also learn that our heroes are not quite as
powerless as we (or they) believed; they didn't really need the
things they thought they needed. Folk rock group America
may have said it best: Oz never did give nothing to the Tin
Man that he didn’t already have.
And so it is in politics. People often treat government the same
way people treat the Wizard in The Wizard of Oz: as if it’s
some sort of god; as if it can grant them all of their wishes and
make all their dreams come true. Government may appear to
be omnipotent at times; but once again, if we look a little
closer we find that things are not quite what they seem. This
brings us to the part I like to call “Five Myths of Omnipotent
Government.”
The last verse of the last song on the album says “the sun is
eclipsed by the moon.” In some mythologies - that of ancient
Greece, for example - the sun is associated with gold, and the
moon with silver. Jackpot! When I made this astounding
discovery, I thought: maybe there really is something to this.
Then I realized: nah, it's just a bunch of crap.
But another interesting thing about Dark Side of the Moon is
all the voices in the background. After the final verse there is a
voice that says “There is no dark side of the moon, really;
matter of fact it's all dark.” In other words, things aren't
always what they seem, which is one of the themes in The
Wizard of Oz. For example, everyone treats the Wizard as
some sort of god. They believe he is omnipotent; that he can
make all of their dreams come true.
In the movie, Dorothy’s companions all want something: the
Scarecrow wants a brain, the Tin Man wants a heart, the
Cowardly Lion wants courage. And they all believe the
Wizard can grant their wishes. Later we learn that things are
not what they seem. The Wizard is just an ordinary guy who
orchestrated this elaborate hoax to fool everyone into
believing he is omnipotent. He can't grant their wishes; he
can't make their dreams come true. So he gives them various
token items as substitutes.
For example, instead of a brain, the Wizard gives the
Scarecrow a diploma. It’s like, here’s a diploma, you’re wiser
now. Well, not really, but at least you’ll feel wiser. I don’t
know about you, but I would have been enraged, to say the
least. I would have given the Wizard a thrashing he would not
MYTH #1: GOVERNMENT MAKES US WISE
Many people seem to believe that our rulers are much wiser
than the rest of us. And just as the Scarecrow believes the
Wizard can give him a brain - make him wise - they believe
that government in effect makes society wiser, and that
without them, we’d be as mindless as the Scarecrow. They sort
of see government as the brain of society, directing us all from
above. And we are their lowly minions; our only function is to
carry out their orders, to obey their commands. Of course, this
serves the interest of the state perfectly.
Murray Rothbard writes in For a New Liberty: The
Libertarian Manifesto that one of the intellectual arguments
used by the state throughout history to justify its power is the
idea that “state rulers are especially great, wise, and altruistic
men - far greater, wiser, and better than their simple subjects.”
Defenders of the state imagine a society ruled by “a wise guild
of scientific experts especially
endowed in knowledge of
statesmanship and the arcane facts
of the world.”
Mark Twain
Government, in reality, is
notoriously incompetent. It can't
seem to do anything right; it seems
to fail at everything it does. There
is a popular observation that sort
of puts it in perspective: “The war
on drugs gave us more drugs; the
war on terrorism gave us more
Page 2
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
June 2015
terrorism. How about we have a war on money and jobs and
see where that goes?” Mark Twain had an interesting theory;
he once remarked, “All congresses and parliaments have a
kindly feeling for idiots, and a compassion for them, on
account of personal experience and heredity.”
make Swiss cheese of us all. Therefore, we need government
to force us to defend ourselves. According to this mindset,
courage is defined as the willingness of group A (our rulers) to
rob group B (we, the taxpayers) to pay group C (the military)
to kill group D (Iraqis, Afghans, you name it).
MYTH #2: GOVERNMENT MAKES US GOOD
In reality, political leaders are
the greatest cowards of all.
They cannot give us courage
because they have none to
give. In 1917 when president
Woodrow Wilson asked
congress for a declaration of
war against Germany,
representative Claude Kitchin
spoke in opposition. He
Claude Kitchin
observed that “It takes neither
moral nor physical courage to
declare a war for others to fight.” As Gustave de Molinari
explains in The Production of Security, there is nothing unique
about security that makes it immune to the laws of economics
(this includes national defense); and there is no reason to
assume that it cannot be supplied by the free market - just like
anything else.
Our rulers would of course like us to believe they are both
smarter and more compassionate than the rest of us; and that
they can make us compassionate. Just as the Tin Man believes
the Wizard can give him a heart and make him good, many
believe government can make us good - by force; and that
without government, we would be as heartless as the Tin Man.
Our whole massive welfare state is founded on this idea; the
entire justification for the welfare state is that it is
compassionate. But as Murray Rothbard observed, “It is easy
to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced
to pay the cost.” Contrary to the claims of its proponents,
welfare is not compassion; it is compulsion.
In 1851 in Social Statics,
referring to the so-called
“poor-law” - the
ostensible purpose of
which was to aid the poor
- Herbert Spencer
explains: “Charity is in
its nature essentially
civilizing, but far
otherwise is it with lawenforced plans of relief.
These exercise just the
opposite influence. A
poor-law tries to make
men merciful by force; it
is wrung from the
unwilling. Voluntary
charity blesses him that
gives, and him that takes;
A poor-law curses both."
MYTH #3: GOVERNMENT MAKES US COURAGEOUS
There are those who seem to believe that our rulers are not
only smarter and more compassionate, they are also more
courageous than everyone else. Just as the Cowardly Lion
believes the Wizard can give him courage, they believe
government in effect makes us more courageous, and that
without them, we’d be as spineless as the Cowardly Lion.
According to this idea, if government were eliminated
tomorrow, our country would immediately be invaded - by
Switzerland, for example, with their Swiss army knives - and
we would all immediately surrender, for fear that they would
MYTH #4: GOVERNMENT MAKES US WEALTHY
Many people believe that
government can create wealth
by various methods, whether by
inflation, such as the silverites
proposed; or by creating jobs, as
the Coxeyites recommended.
But this idea is the result of a
failure to understand the true
nature of the state. Government
by itself produces nothing of
value. It can't create prosperity;
it’s existence is entirely
parasitical. In the words of
Frederic Bastiat, “The State can
give you nothing with the one
hand but what it has taken from you with the other.”As
Rothbard wrote in Man, Economy, and State, “The voluntary
principle and the free market lead inexorably to prosperity,
while coercion and government intervention lead inexorably to
poverty.”
Some claim there is a right to employment. But for this right
to have any meaning, government would have to force
employers to hire people, or else hire them directly itself. But
this would necessarily involve taxation - robbing one group of
people to benefit another. And as Ayn Rand observed, “Any
so-called right that necessitates the violation of another man’s
right is not and cannot be a right.”
Page 3
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
In France in 1848 there was a revolution, one of several during
that century. You may be familiar with Thomas Jefferson's
recommendation of a rebellion every twenty years; it's almost
as if the French followed his advice. During the revolution of
1848 the government created these so-called “national
workshops”, which guaranteed the right to employment. There
were unintended consequences; more people signed up than
expected. The government ran out of money and they couldn't
pay everyone. Fortunately someone recognized it for the
disaster that it was and eventually put a stop to it. Frederic
Bastiat was in the legislature at the time, and he considered the
workshops and any other such scheme “a ruinous hoax, an
impossibility, a contradiction.”
MYTH #5: THE GREATEST MYTH OF ALL
On one hand there are those who proudly defend the state, and
claim that it can make us wise, good, and everything else.
Then there are those who pretend to be champions of liberty,
and may even concede that government cannot make us wise,
or good, or wealthy - and who nevertheless defend the state.
They claim that in a free society, the state is not only possible;
it is absolutely necessary.
They claim that we need government to protect our life, liberty
and property; in other words - Myth #5 - government makes us
free. But once again, as Bastiat explains in his book The Law,
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have
made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty,
and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws
in the first place.”
They believe government has a good side and a bad side; a
light side - and a dark side. They believe that if we just elect
good people, government will suddenly stop doing bad things
and do only good things. They believe that we just need to
limit the power of the state, but we don't want to go too far;
we don't want to eliminate it completely, because then we'd be
“throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.
June 2015
the abominable demon spawn of the Wicked Witch of the
West? It doesn't take a wizard to figure that one out; even the
Scarecrow is wise enough to know that in that case, you throw
that baby out. You throw that baby as far as you can possibly
throw it. Because contrary to what our rulers would like us to
believe, government cannot make us free any more than it can
make us wise or wealthy; and we can't make government good
any more than it can make us good; you can't make something
good out of something that is inherently evil. And like the
moon, there is no dark side of the state; as a matter of fact, it’s
all dark.
LPDC Membership Program!
Want to help out the LPDC and at the same time get some
cool libertarian swag? Check out our contributor
membership program!
Tyranny Fighters: The Julian Heicklen
Chronicles
by Garry Reed
Beginning in 2009 when he
was 77 years old and
continuing until June 2012
at age 80 veteran rights
activist Julian Heicklen was
confronted, harassed,
attacked, arrested and jailed
by the very law enforcers
charged with protecting his
rights. On more than one
occasion He was injected
with dangerous
antipsychotic drugs, all
because he refused to be
complicit in his own illegal arrests.
His "crime" was giving jury rights pamphlets to fellow
American citizens who voluntarily chose to accept them while
both were standing peacefully on public sidewalks in front of
America's public courthouses.
Over the years he was joined by a thousand-strong group of
supporters who came to be known as Tyranny Fighters,
freedom-loving men and women who joined him in whatever
capacity they could; helping distribute brochures, video
recording, photographing, witnessing, publicizing,
interviewing, advocating and aiding in his legal battles.
But what if that baby isn’t human? What if that baby is in fact
Many of these Tyranny Fighters themselves became victims of
Page 4
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
the establishment's confrontations, threats, harassments,
attacks, arrests and prosecutions.
June 2015
media sites.
The primary goal of this book is to celebrate the courage and
inspiration of Julian Heicklen and to applaud the contributions
of all those who proudly took up the mantle of Tyranny
Fighter. Another goal is to reach beyond the libertarian world
to let other freedom-oriented people know that they too can
peacefully resist those who are oppressing them.
To reach these goals all income earned from this selfpublished edition of Tyranny Fighters will go towards pushing
the book ever outwards into the mainstream through paid
advertising, promotions, news releases, publicity campaigns
and whatever other means I can find and afford.
My role as a Tyranny Fighter, limited as it was by the fact that
I live in the Dallas/Fort Worth area while Julian operated
primarily in the Mid-Atlantic states, was as a reporter, writer,
opinionizer, publicist and advocate. Julian was fond of saying
"The price of justice is eternal publicity" and I took that as my
personal challenge.
From the beginning of Julian's activism and the rise of the
Tyranny Fighters I wrote and posted some 70 news and
commentary articles in
their support. Now I've
collected it all in a
single volume under
the title Tyranny
Fighters: The Julian
Heicklen Chronicles.
All of the original
articles are here,
amplified with
additional introductory
notes and by never
before published
background material
from activist emails,
reader comments,
social media sites and
mainstream news
sources.
The book tells the story as it happened, from beginning to end,
article by article, dateline by dateline, blow by blow, the
setbacks and successes and even the infighting, the coming
together of the libertarian community in overwhelming
support of the jailed activists with demonstrations and protests
and marches and call floods and freedom pages on social
Everyone interested in helping to disseminate this remarkable
story by writing and posting book reviews and author
interviews, suggesting marketing opportunities or just buying
and enjoying the book can begin by learning more at and
supporting the Tyranny Fighters Blogspot and Tyranny
Fighters Facebook page or by contacting the author at
[email protected].
How Many Concealed Carry-ers Does it
Take to Cover a Room?
by Curry B. Taylor
In honor of the imminent
passage of Open Carry
legislation in the State of Texas,
I thought it would be fun to
review a calculation I made last
year with regard to concealed
carry. If you're one of those
weirdos who doesn't like
mathematics, well, you'll
probably want to run for the hills
screaming right about now.
I originally wrote this in response to a claim from someone
online who said that since 1 in 37 people in Texas, as of a
2014 estimate, has their concealed handgun license (CHL),
then there is a 1/37 chance that somebody may be carrying
concealed at any given moment, given a choice of any random
person (and of course assuming that all licensees carry
regularly).
That much may be true, but I think it's more instructive to ask
the following question. Suppose we have a room full of N
people, in Texas. How many people must be in the room
before it becomes statistically likely that at least one person in
the room has their CHL (and is hopefully carrying)? Another
way of stating the same question is, "How large does N have
to be in order to for there to be a greater than 50% probability
Page 5
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
June 2015
that someone in their room has their CHL?"
# of Texans - # of Texans with a CHL
# of Texans
=
so we have
[
]
# of Texans - # of Texans with a CHL
# of Texans
N
< 0.5
Now we can solve for N. Take the log of both sides:
N log
Note: Let's put aside the more fundamental question, for the
duration of this article, about why someone needs to apply for
a license to exercise a right to self-defense in the first place,
and just take the Texas CHL for what it currently is in the legal
sense.
The easiest way to answer the question set forth above is to
calculate the probability that no one in the room yet has a
CHL, as we add people to the room. So, for example, if there
were one person in the room, the probabiltity of no one having
a CHL in the room would be the ratio of the number of Texans
without a CHL to the total number of Texans.
p1 =
# of Texans with no CHL
# of Texans
Okay, well what if we have two people in the room? Well,
that's really just the same ratio again, so we just multiply the
two probabilities together:
p1 p 2
Actually, you really have to subtract 1 from both the
numerator (# of non-CHL holders) and denominator (# of
Texans) to be strictly correct, but subtracting 1 from a very
large number doesn't make much of a difference at all, so let's
neglect that to make the math simpler.
So we can continue this process of multiplying the probability
ratio by itself until the total probability, which is the
multiplicity of all of the p factors, becomes less than 50%, or
0.5. The question is, how many times do we have to multiply
that factor by itself in order to do that? Let's say we multiply
the factors together N times:
pN < 0.5
and we require that that ratio is less than 50%. Okay, well, we
know what p is, to a very good approximation:
# of Texans with no CHL
p =
# of Texans
N >
[
# of Texans - # of Texans with a CHL
# of Texans
< log(0.5)
]
log (0.5)
# of Texans - # of Texans with a CHL
log
# of Texans
[
]
Let's use 23904380 for the number of people in Texas 2014
(from a census number) and 584850 for the number of CHL
holders in January, 2013. The numbers will be a little bit off,
but in a conservative estimate direction. (i.e. There are more
carriers today than in 2015.)
log(0.5)
23904380−584850
log
23904380
N > 27.98
N = 28 ( rounding up)
N >
[
]
So, using those numbers and approximations at face value,
you need to have at least 28 people in a room in Texas before
it becomes likely (>50%) that there will be at least one CHL
holder present. I bet if you hadn't done the statistics, most of
you would have guessed that you'd need 37 people in a room,
not 28.
You can also invert the original question above and ask,
“What would the fraction of Texans with a CHL have to be in
order to guarantee that someone in the room is likely to have
one?” I'll define the fraction of Texans with a CHL as
f =
# of Texans with a CHL
# of Texans
Then, from the prior equations, the fraction of Texans would
have to be
f > 1 −
1
2
1
N
Page 6
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
where N is the number of people in the room. We can plot f as
a function of N.
June 2015
phrase in the Pledge that I would like to challenge: "one
Nation" (as well as the use of "Republic" instead of
"Republics", and "indivisible").
Let's review our history to see if the United States are truly
"one Nation".
First, please note that any central government among the
colonies (with the obvious exception of the English Crown
before Independence) was a creation of the individual colonies
(i.e. the Continental Congresses).
In other words, raising the fraction f even a little bit covers
ever-smaller room sizes fairly quickly, at least until you get to
a room size all the way down to 5 people or so.
Note also the wording
of the Declaration of
Independence: "are [not
is] . . . free and
independent States [not:
a free and independent
State]". Remember that
back then, folks
understood that State
meant country/nation;
indeed, even today
many nations use the
term State in their
official names (State of
Israel, State of Kuwait).
Note of course that all of these calcuations assume that all
CHL holders carry 100% of the time, which obviously isn't the
case in reality. Since we don't have a really good estimate on
how often holders carry at the moment, we can at least make
some “what-if” speculations.
The Articles Of Confederation created a central government
for extremely limited purposes, but did not alter the basic
sovereignty of the States and Commonwealths. It called The
Confederation a "perpetual" alliance, but did not prohibit
withdrawal.
I suppose now, with Open Carry passing by the Governor's
desk, we'll need to guess less about these numbers to a certain
degree, since we'll actually be able to see some handguns
exposed nakedly, without concealment restrictions. However, I
predict only a small fraction of license holders will opt to
carry openly.
Note that George Washington referred to America as "a new
constellation", not "a new star".
Note that even with a room population as low as 7, less than
10% of Texans overall need to have a CHL in order for it to be
likely that one person in the room has one. Note also that I
stopped the plot at N=28, which happens to represent the
current f ratio (as of the 2013/2014 numbers that I used).
Are the United States “One Nation”?
by Jeff Daiell
Even the King of England recognized this; the Treaty
acknowledging Independence referred to the 13 States and
Commonwealths individually as free and independent States.
Now let's look at the process by which the members of The
Confederation seceded from that organization and joined The
Union.
Originally published in Issue VI. of
Primum Mobile
Remember that the Articles required that amendments be
approved unanimously by the States/Commonwealths, and
there was no provision for replacing them with a new
fundamental law for The Confederation.
A few months back, there was
considerable controversy over
whether the Pledge of Allegiance
should include the words "under
God". But there is another two-word
But, when it was proposed that a new basic law be adopted,
even the opponents of the switch did not challenge the legality
of doing so — because a new alliance was being created.
Indeed, the Preamble itself says one of the new document's
goals was "to form a more perfect Union", not "to make our
Confederation more perfect". Also, the Preamble ends by
Page 7
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
June 2015
calling the new document a "Constitution for" — not a
"Constitution of" the United States of America.
secession. Obviously, their sponsors did not believe secession
was unConstitutional!
Note also the wording at the end of Article VI, Section 1 —
public debts are declared valid "as under the Confederation"
— not "as under the Articles of Confederation".
Then let's review the Constitutional aftermath of the conquest
of the Confederacy by the United States. Although the
Constitution was amended to abolish slavery — because
nothing done by the Federal Government had changed the
legal status of slavery in those States/Commonwealths which
had not withdrawn from The Union — that document was not
amended to prohibit secession, nor was the 10th Amendment
repealed.
In addition, new States were to be admitted on a basis equal to
that of the original thirteen. These politicians would not have
accepted the dilution of their power (as each new member of
The Union joined, each original State would have a smaller
percentage of the votes in each House of Congress) if they
thought they were creating "one nation"; instead, they
recognized it as the inevitable consequence of forming a new
federation.
Then there's Article VII: ratification. Once nine
States/Commonwealths ratified the Constitution, that
document took effect among those ratifying.
While it was obviously likely that all thirteen would
eventually join the new alliance, there was no guarantee — but
the Framers were willing to take that chance. That is, they
were willing to see two separate leagues of
States/Commonwealths, if that turned out to be the result.
Further, recall that the dates given for each of the thirteen
original States/Commonwealth's joining The Union is the date
on which each jurisdiction ratified The Constitution — not
The Articles. The Union was/is a separate alliance!
Now fast-forward, and let's look at Lincoln's First Inaugural
Address. He was willing to allow the withdrawing republics to
be essentially independent, as long as they paid "Danegeld" —
tribute money in the form of taxes and tariffs. This is hardly
the stance of someone who sincerely considered the United
States to be "one nation"!
While it may be that a future attempt at secession was
considered highly unlikely, it's doubtful that the politicians
would have cared to take a chance if they truly thought any
secession at all would have been improper. Rather, it's likely
they did not want to close the door on that option for any
Northern State/Commonwealth who might care to exercise it
in the future (as some of them had indeed threatened to in the
past).
And even the Supreme Court ruling that later (ignoring the
10th Amendment) decreed that secession was illegal declared
that the Framers intended "an indestructible Union [not nation,
not country, not — singular — Republic]".
Next, look at the way Federal statutes are introduced.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled". That is,
the delegates from the individual sovereignties are gathered
together (the absence of a comma after America makes it clear
that it is the various members of The Union, not the two
legislative chambers, that are "in Congress assembled".)
Admittedly, political power, as the mass-murdering dictator,
Mao Tzedong, wrote, all too often flows from the barrel of a
gun. So the reality is that the Federal Government, having
crushed secessionist sentiment on the battlefield, acts, and will
continue to act, in arrogant disregard of the legalities cited
above.
Still: contrary to the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance — an
oath resulting, keep in mind, from a contest sponsored by a
socialist magazine — the United States are not one nation.
Copyright 2005, 2014 by Jeff Daiell
Keep this in mind as well: in both 1860 and 1861,
Constitutional amendments had been proposed to outlaw
Page 8
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
June 2015
Upcoming Meetings
•
Trivia night at Trinity Hall
◦ Every Sunday Night, 7:30 PM
◦ Trinity Hall Irish Pub & Restaurant
5321 E Mockingbird Ln, Dallas, TX
LPDC Officer List
Chair – Paul Petersen ([email protected])
Vice-Chair – Curry B. Taylor ([email protected])
Secretary – Eugene Flynn ([email protected])
Treasurer – Curry B. Taylor ([email protected])
•
Libertarian Party of Dallas County General
Meeting
◦ June 9th, 7:00 PM – 9:00 PM
2nd Tuesday of Every Month
◦ Sambuca - Uptown
2120 McKinney Ave., Dallas, TX
LPDC At-Large Directors
Jim Birchfield ([email protected])
Marshall Beerwinkle ([email protected])
Kevin Frederickson ([email protected])
Dianne Mueller ([email protected])
Yvette Shaw ([email protected])
Up-to-date meeting announcements and details can always be
found on meetup.com. (www.meetup.com/DallasLibertarians/)
Working Committee Leaders
Marketing – Dianne Mueller ([email protected])
Outreach – Dianne Mueller ([email protected])
Fundraising – <currently vacant>
Webmaster – Jordan Wagnon ([email protected])
Libertarian References
•
Books
◦ Good to be King, Michael Badnarik
◦ Why Government Doesn't Work, Harry Browne
◦ Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand
◦ Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz
◦ Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt
◦ Healing Our World, Dr. Mary Ruwart
•
Videos
◦ Neitzsche and the Nazis, Stephen Hicks
◦ Bullsh*t!, Penn & Teller
◦ Free to Choose, Milton Friedman
◦ America: Freedom to Fascism, Aaron Russo
•
Websites
◦ The Libertarian Party of Dallas County
lpdallas.org
◦ The Libertarian Party of Texas
lptexas.org
◦ The National Libertarian Party
www.lp.org
◦ Students for Liberty
studentsforliberty.org
◦ Free Talk Live
www.freetalklive.com
◦ The Cato Institute
www.cato.org
◦ Molinari Institute
praxeology.net/molinari.htm
◦ Objectivism In-Brief
mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/InBrief
The LPDC is a local branch of the Libertarian Party based in Dallas
County, Texas. Find out more about the LPDC at http://lpdallas.org.
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United
States, and was established in 1971 to promote more freedom and
less intrusive government in all aspects of life. Find out more about
the LP at http://www.lp.org.
Page 9
Libertarian Party of Dallas County, Texas
This page intentionally left blank as we wait for you to join
us in the libertarian revolution.
June 2015
This page intentionally left blank as we wait for you to join
us in the libertarian revolution.
Hey you!
Are you done reading this newsletter? Get one of your friends or
family members to read it!
Page 10