Sep 282013

The South Bay Libertarians will have a booth at Space #4 of the “Free Expression Zone” at the Manhattan Beach Hometown Fair on Saturday and Sunday, October 5th and 6th. Volunteers are needed to staff the booth.  To sign up, contact South Bay Libertarians Chair, Jay Jones at  j1000 at  (fill in @ for at) . To see where we will be, and to find free parking and free shuttle service,  go to .

May 302013

The below three LPLAC Bylaw Amendments will be voted on at our LPLAC Convention on June 1, 2013.

Proposal 1

In ARTICLE V:   OFFICERS, insert new Section 3, renumber subsequent sections.

Section 3: Interim Removal and Appointment of Officers.  A County Officer may be removed from Office by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Executive Board after failure to attend two (2) consecutive board meetings.  In the case of an interim vacancy of County Office, the Executive Board shall have the power to appoint a member to that office upon a majority vote at a regular Executive Board meeting.


Proposal 2

Append to end of Section 3 in ARTICLE VII: Board Meetings, the text in bold

Unless otherwise ordered by the Board, regular meetings of the Executive Board shall be held monthly at a time and place to be determined by the Chair. Special meetings of the Board may be called by the Chair and shall be called upon the written request of three members of the Board.  Electronic meetings of the Board via email, chat, video chat or teleconferencing, may be called by the Chair and shall be called upon the request of three members of the Board.  In the event of email meetings, all subsidiary motions shall have a seconding and voting period of three (3) days, all main motions, seconding and voting shall have a voting period of ten (10) days.  For all electronic meetings all main motions shall require an absolute majority of the Board to pass.


Proposal 3

Add Section 4 to ARTICLE VII: The Executive Board

Section 4:  Quorum.  A quorum at monthly Executive Board meetings shall consist of a majority of the current members of the Board.

May 302013

by Robert H. Biggadike

Illegal immigrants are good for America. There are jobs in construction, agriculture, grounds keeping, meat processing, and textile production for which illegal immigrants are not only cheaper but also more productive than Americans. Employers should have access to the best source of labor. Illegal immigrants pay sales, property, social security and income taxes. But they are not eligible for benefits. The illegal aliens come here because there are jobs available for them to do. To fully utilize this fine source of low cost labor, we should abolish minimum wage laws and rely on the free market.


Our wealth in America is determined by what we produce or acquire through free trade. It is not determined by how many jobs we have. The fact that some illegal aliens lack a high school education is no problem so long as they are able to do their jobs. Illegal aliens are able to live within their means through thrift and frugality. American employers must be given the right to hire those whom they think are most productive. Protectionism has been shown by principles of economics to be a bad policy.


One fallacy used to argue against illegal immigration is the statement that unneeded low skilled workers come to this country. But this is untrue, low skilled workers come to this country because there are jobs available in this country for which they are better qualified than Americans both in terms of productivity and in wages demanded.


Another economic fallacy the protectionist use is that the free market wages that result when government does not restrict employers right to hire will be harmful. But our wealth depends on what we produce or gain in trade not on the wages we pay. Employers can produce most efficiently when they hire the most productive labor force.


A third economic fallacy is that immigration should be restricted in order to encourage investment in labor saving technology. But government should not use immigration policy to encourage investment in machinery, the decision to invest in labor saving technology should instead be based strictly on free market forces.


Protectionists sometimes say that if we hire low cost labor, we are taking unfair advantage of the employee. This is another fallacy. When two parties agree to a contract of employment, whether oral or written, both parties benefit. The illegal immigrant benefits when he accepts what some would call a low wage job, otherwise he would not have accepted the job.

Apr 022013

San Antonio Winery

Heritage Room

737 Lamar Street

Los Angeles, CA 90031

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Registration  11:30 am-12:00 pm

Speakers  12:00 pm-2:30 pm

Business/Elections 2:30 pm-4:00 pm

Wine tour 4:00pm

Wine tasting to follow

$20 includes speakers, winery tour, and wine tasting

($25 at door) *lunch extra/optional

Please make checks payable to LPLAC

To pay by mail send order form and check to P.O. Box 66808, Los Angeles, CA 90066-0808

Mailed payments must be received by May 23, 2013

For credit card payment go to



Apr 022013
Our organization is growing in numbers!  And with this new growth, there is a call for more of us to become involved in our day to day operation.  Each of these positions will require anywhere from a few hours per week to less than a few hours per month, depending on the position and your availability, of course!If you see something that screams YOU, send us an email with your interest and qualifications’d love have to you on board!     FREEDOM IS CALLING!
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
-Duties may include:  Attending local events that may be of interest to libertarians, taking pictures of the events, and submitting them along with a brief synopsis to the e-newsletter editor for the upcoming monthly issue.
-Duties include:  Developing and executing plans to raise funds for local campaigns, operating expenses as well as for specific purposes/projects.  Must have prior experience in political fundraising.
-Duties include:  Writing and submitting four libertarian related articles per year, to appear in the quarterly L.A. Libertarian Journal issued every season.
-Duties may include:  Assisting editor-in-chief in preparation, financing, publishing and distribution of quarterly L.A. Libertarian Journal.
-Duties include:  Working with spreadsheets in order to identify and contact past members, current members, and potential members. Will work closely with and under supervision of county chair.  Must have proficiency in EXCEL or similar spreadsheet software, and internet skills.
-Duties include, but not limited to:   Developing, producing, ordering, stocking, selling and keeping track of LPLAC merchandise such as T-shirts, polo shirts, hats, etc.  Will work closely with regional chairs to distribute merchandise.  Prior experience preferred, but not necessary.
-Duties include:   Using the internet (and phone, if necessary) to determine the different offices, bureaus, boards, departments, agencies, bureaucracies, etc. that compose L.A. county & local city governments along with their relevant information such as term of office, positions available, and dates of any upcoming elections/appointments.  Will work closely with Campaigns Committee chair. Must be proficient in computer/internet skills including EXCEL or similar spreadsheet software.

- Duties include, but are not limited to:  Ensuring county website is continually updated & improved, fully functional, informative, modern, easy to use, secure, useful, responsive to inquiries, accepts donations/renewals, etc.  Will work closely with and under supervision of county chair.  Must be proficient in computer/internet skills including WordPress software.

Apr 022013

By Ayn R. Key

The most dangerous thing, politically speaking, is an unaccountable center of political power. Allegedly the United States government is set up to prevent such a thing from happening. Congress has the power of impeachment of both the President and of Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court has the power to nullify laws that were passed. The President has both enforcement power and veto power.
It is a nice theory, but does not work so well in practice. As it stands now, the congress has ceded almost all of its power to the other branches. What should be accomplished through legislation is instead accomplished by executive order or by judicial fiat. The only power that still remains with congress is that to pass a budget (or even a continuing resolution) and even that was attacked recently with the idea to mint a high denomination platinum coin.
The Department of Homeland Security, perhaps one of the most dangerous departments in the federal government, no longer submits to any sort of checks of authority. According to Infowars, Janet Napolitano is ignoring requests by members of congress to explain the large ammunition purchases by the Department of Homeland Security.
This follows but a few months after John Pistole, director of the TSA, declined to show at a congressional hearing. And this is not the first time that the leadership of the TSA has declined to show, setting rules for their participation that include not allowing critics of the TSA at the hearings.
There is very little accountability in the United States government. But blatant disregard of this magnitude is startlingly new. Only the quasi-independent Federal Reserve has ever been able to disregard the checks and balances up until this point. Moreover, the TSA has even retaliated against elected officials that dared to criticize the TSA. It is clear that in addition to controlling all entry and exit to the country, the DHA is setting itself far above the law.


Apr 022013

By Ayn R. Key

Libertarian websites, and other concerned allies on this issue, have noticed that the officials at the Department of Homeland Security have purchased an unjustifiably large amount of munitions. Janet Napolitano claims it is for training purposes, but training rounds are the cheapest rounds anyone purchases and hollow point rounds are not used for training.
The obvious conclusion is that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing for domestic unrest. But there is another aspect to the Department of Homeland Security that is also of great cause for alarm. It is which sub-agencies form the Department of Homeland Security.
The first departments to note are U. S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These departments are there allegedly to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. What they do is to monitor the goods entering or leaving the United States. This ensures that all tariffs are paid, that drugs are not smuggled in, and that intellectual property is not smuggled out.
The next agency of note is the United States Border Patrol, a sub-agency of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This agency monitors all people entering the United States by land. The U. S. Customs and Border Protection monitors all people leaving the United States.
The Transportation Security Agency, officially charged with protecting the airlines from those who might seek to conduct terrorist activities while in the air. Actually what they do is to track all people who fly, and to forbid certain people who have their names on the often denied “no fly list.” Anyone who might seek to leave the United States by air must pass through the Transportation Security Agency. The Transportation Security Agency only monitors those leaving, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement monitors those entering the United States by air.
Then there is the U. S. Coast Guard. Originally it was part of the Department of Transportation that occasionally worked as part of the Department of the Navy. It was moved from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Any activity on the shores of the United States is under their jurisdiction. It conducts maritime law enforcement, migrant interdiction, and drug interdiction.
This one agency, the Department of Homeland Security, therefore monitors the entrance or exit of all people or goods that cross the United States Border, by air, sea, or land. Anyone who wishes to enter or leave has to deal with some agency within the Department of Homeland Security, and has to deal with some agency if any goods are to enter or leave as well.
It is the ultimate dream of those in power, to have complete control over entrance or exit over a country. The Department of Homeland Security is that ultimate dream made real. If there is unrest, as the leadership of that department obviously anticipates, that department therefore also has the authority to close all the borders.
Apr 022013

By Ayn R. Key

Although the website does not yet have GPI or GPD data for 2012, the value of Gold for 2012 is ready on That enables calculations for one measure, but only one measure, for the deficits for President Obama’s first term.
Using constant gold dollars, those who would overspend benefit in appearance from a rising price of gold. The price of gold has risen every year since President Obama has assumed office. That would make any deficits smaller when converted to constant dollars. Even by that measure, President Obama now has the largest deficits of any presidential term.
Measured in 1789 dollars, the gold-weighted dollar values of the deficits are:
President Deficit
Obama Term 1 -99,821,590,396.08
Bush Jr Term 1 -99,776,642,401.45
F Roosevelt 3 -96,408,875,337.91
Bush Jr Term 2 -85,474,167,431.44
Bush Sr -82,665,333,079.60
Clinton Term 1 -63,508,876,217.31
Reagan Term 2 -55,620,058,613.77
Nixon -37,083,571,857.12
Reagan Term 1 -34,590,184,231.84
Clinton Term 2 -31,541,432,371.56
Nixon / Ford -30,632,171,603.66
F Roosevelt / Truman -30,513,251,062.43
Carter -25,169,881,466.50
Every single president since President Nixon severed the final link between the dollar and gold is included in the list of presidents that have the most unbalanced budgets. Since this is a constant dollar list, that means that these deficits are not impacted by the collapsing dollar.
For all the posturing about how President Obama wanted to fix the financial mess handed to him by President Bush, he has in fact done the opposite. It is no longer true that President Bush is the worst spender. These numbers do not lie. While it is possible to come up with explanations as to why these numbers are what they are, such explanations do not change what the numbers are.
Apr 022013

By Jonathan Jaech
Bob Wenzel over at EPJ provoked me to think about drone law a bit with this posting today:
Here are my edited comments on his post, as a sort of note to myself to expand on the topic a bit when I get the chance.
Airspace and oceans are areas where Lockean-Rothbardian homesteading theory, as useful as it is, does not provide very satisfactory answers to the balance of rights that should be afforded to carriages in transit over or under private property as opposed to the land holders below or above the carriage.  Libertarians of the bleeding heart variety have some useful things to say about spaces that are not owned by anyone in particular, but it would require some research on my part to outline some of the prominent points of left-libertarian public space theory and relate them to the problem at hand.
Regarding flying drones, it seems to me that these should be permitted and legally protected (as property) from attack so long as not creating a nuisance, or posing an unreasonable risk of harm to any property owners below.  Spying on private property may be, at least under some circumstances, a nuisance that deprives the owner of the enjoyment of privacy that owning an expanse of rock or soil might reasonably expected to provide, although the nuances of that need some hashing out.  No distinction should be made between private or government drones.
Because the real estate property owner cannot determine, using present technology, whether or not a drone is spying on property below, real property owners should be permitted to bring down or otherwise disable any overflying drones owned by others, so long as they do not use an unreasonable amount of force in doing so.  Such drones should be protected (i.e., subject to no more than the minimal necessary trespass on chattel required to protect the land holder’s rights) and returned to the rightful owners if possible to do so, presuming that the drones are not evidence of a violent crime.  What is “reasonable force” should depend on the circumstances and may change with time as drone-protection technology improves.  The burden of risk for overflying another person’s land should belong to the drone operator, not the land holder, based on the principle that the drone operator is the one who decides to overfly the property of another and the land holder has no say in the matter.  One who intentionally and unilaterally initiates an unforced action should bear all the risks of doing so.