Modern Whig Party Says it Will Try to Qualify in Michigan

From Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:

On September 21, the Modern Whig Party informed Michigan’s Secretary of State that it is about to start collecting signatures on a petition to be on the 2016 ballot. Michigan lets petitioning groups set their own petitioning period, but the job must be done in six months. So now the Modern Whig Party must collect 31,519 signatures by March 18, 2016. Thanks to John Wilhelm for this news.

2 thoughts on “Modern Whig Party Says it Will Try to Qualify in Michigan

  1. A Fighting Chance

    The socialist totalitarians (D, R, I) are sociopaths who recognize that they don’t care about protecting property rights. Therefore, they openly lie and contradict themselves, and contradict their own “platform,” and nobody cares, because they’re either too dumb to notice the contradictions or they expect to be lied to.

    A small but significant minority of people dislike the current dishonest and sociopathic system, and attempt to unite with others to oppose it. However, they fail to comprehend that the problem isn’t the incoherent and inconsistent platforms of the other parties, but their domination by like-minded sociopaths. So, they go about splitting hairs, trying to perfect a party platform, and a label they think others will rally behind. This simply takes a small resistance movement, and turns it into isolated, warring factions.

    The ballot access laws make a third party success unlikely, especially because “resisting theft and predation of political minorities” is not that important to the majority of white, comfortable people from which the third parties are drawn. Such people lack the strong desire to come into conflict with dangerous sociopaths who currently run the government. They understand that, underneath the flimsy facade of “proper elections” there is naked threat of violence.

    Even so, there is one third party that has a legitimate platform that, theoretically, should appeal to the widest possible base, and even threaten the coercive, sociopathic “major parties” and “independents.” This party disavows the initiation of force, which is the core identifying feature of western civilization (sometimes referred to in a religious context, this idea must be very simple to communicate). The Christians in the USA refer to this as “Do unto others,” or “the golden rule.” The Libertarian Party is built on the recognition that “Don’t do unto others as you don’t want done unto yourself,” (the negative formulation of the golden rule, sometimes called “the silver rule”) is a better, more logical construction. After all, there are a lot of positive actions that can be taken: one can study nuclear physics, eat bushels of broccoli, learn how to skateboard, or manage an airline, all without violating individual rights. However, nearly all of the people attempting the prior endeavors would object to being punched in the face (having force initiated against them).

    We are all united by not wanting force to be initiated against us.

    The law of the USA once recognized this, and, by educating everyone about the law, a high degree of freedom was obtained, and a high degree of material wealth was correspondingly obtained and retained.

    Private schools saw the need to teach students about “the common law” (the implications of “the silver rule”). They taught their students that it was morally wrong to force others to obey your own desires, no matter how well those desires worked for you. Even if I love to be force fed broccoli paste at 6am every day, I have no right to impose this regimen on other people, no matter how healthy it is, no matter how good it makes me feel. This is the meaning of the right to think as one wishes, the right to unforced “diversity of opinion.”

    The “common law” is structured to protect private property of the individual. The individual owns his or her own body, and all justly-acquired property. All such property is material(made of atoms and molecules), and can be clearly described as existing in material reality, so the religious baggage associated with “the golden rule” and “the silver rule” is unnecessary.

    The common law requires the presence of a valid “corpus delicti” in order to be activated. Without a valid corpus, the law is never activated. No matter how many police officers there are under the common law, they stand around and do nothing (or perhaps clean their firearms or target shoot at the range), until there is a valid “corpus delicti.” A “corpus delicti” is Latin for “the body of the crime.” A valid consists of a specific injury to a specifically-identified injured party, combined with the intent to injure that same specifically-identified injured party. If either “injury” or “intent” is absent from someone’s actions, then a jury should find that there is no valid corpus, and that jury should vote “not guilty.”

    The effect of this system of law is to make the individual conscience of citizen-jurors into the final arbiter of “the law.”

    But something happens when you let the government educate your kids. The government fails to properly teach your kids about the common law’s requirement of a “corpus delicti,” to establish guilt. It fails to teach your kids that juries must be random, without selection pressure in favor or against the law. It fails to teach your kids that jury verdicts are unimpeachable. It fails to teach your kids about the independent jurors who acquitted John Lilburne, William Penn, and John Peter Zenger. Instead, the government teaches your kids that “Whatever the group of sociopaths elected to the legislature decides, is the law, because, they ‘represent’ you.” In reality, there is no “representation.” No individual can represent another, without a voluntarily agreed upon contract, tailored to specific circumstances. Anything else does not qualify as “representation.” Moreover, even if we perfectly agree with a legislator, the government’s sole tool (force) is a poor way to bring that legislator’s ideas into reality. (Yet ideas are efficiently brought into reality all the time by the voluntary contracts of private business.)

    Even if I love to be force fed broccoli paste at 6am every day, I have no right to impose this regimen on other people, no matter how healthy it is, no matter how good it makes me feel.

    Yet, if a law is passed that requires the force-feeding of every individual at 6am, the government will claim that such a law ‘represents’ us.

    If you think this is a silly example, look at Nazi Germany: their government murdered over 20 MILLION innocent civilians, not including battle deaths from WWII. Our own government has put millions of people in prisons for choosing to use a plant drug, the effects of which are far less harmful than the effects of alcohol and chemically-altered nicotine cigarettes, which are both legal. The effects of false representation are devastating to all societies.

    This is why the common law was designed to require a “corpus,” NO MATTER WHAT LAWS ARE MADE. The common law existed before and after the U.S. Constitution, as the law that greater than 99.99% of people agreed upon. The common law is compatible with the Bill of Rights, but not with the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution, and not with the “general welfare” clause of the Constitution. The prior two clauses have been used by power-seeking sociopaths (elected as “representatives”) to claim that the Bill of Rights and “common law” does not limit government in any way.

    Friedrich Hayek claimed to be an “old Whig,” a liberal, and, in the USA, “a libertarian” (though he did not like the term). He also didn’t like using the term “classical” to modify liberal, since those who pervert the meaning of a term should lose the right to its unmodified use, not the other way around. Old Whig, Libertarian, Republican, and Democrat all mean the same things.

    They all, by their title, imply respect for the common law.

    Their polar opposite would be “totalitarian” and “prohibitionist.” Only one party in the USA calls itself “prohibition” and they have such a tiny market share that they only make it on the ballot by lying to petition signers, in religious backwaters. (Incidentally, they just made it on the ballot in Arkansas using LP “ballot access chair” Bill Redpath’s favorite “libertarian” petitioner, Daryl Bonner. He stood outside of welfare offices and said it was to send more tax money to the schools, preying upon the ignorant and dim-witted of Arkansas who have already been stripped of intellectual depth by the government-run schools.)

    That said, expressly-revealed totalitarianism is still “a hard sell” to the masses. Yet, all political parties in the USA are totalitarian in their behavior. They all use a mixture of “libertarian-sounding” rhetoric and the promise of socialist handouts to get access to the ballot, and to get elected. Because that message is self-contradictory, the only thing the voters actually get once politicians are elected, are the socialist programs that work inefficiently and expensively (when they “work” at all) and violate everyone’s rights.

    The socialist totalitarians who run with the winning parties (D,R), know that they are promising the public contradictions that cannot exist in reality. They simply hope that they will not be singled out for producing exceptionally bad results, during their time spent stealing a paycheck from the US debt-serfs.

    So why are U.S. voters so easily-fooled? Simple: They learned as children that contradictions are OK, and that dissent is harshly punished. Their teachers also never taught them enough about the “common law” necessary to use the law to defend their own property and freedom.

    They were, instead, taught: If you need to defend your property or freedom, hire a lawyer.

    Contrast this with what school children were taught prior to the advent of government schooling in the 1880s-1900: “Every citizen is equal under the law, and equally able to defend himself in court. Every man is his own lawyer in a free country.”

    In the 1800s, “State bar foundations” and state licensing requirements began restricting the law to a protected monopoly of practitioners. Ohio abolitionist Lysander Spooner successfully overturned this licensing requirement on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, in 1836. (He also recognized that there was no such thing as “representation.”) However, gradually, licensing gradually returned in every state, since it concentrates power in the hands of legislators, by diminishing the power of pro-se defendants to comprehend increasingly more complex laws that contradict the common law.

    With a strong and well-educated jury (the product of a private education system), complex and self-contradictory laws cannot survive review by juries.

    But when a government schoolteacher happens to educate the children of her class about the power of juries to “nullify” the law, her students ask their parents about what she has taught. Some of those children are the children of bar-licensed attorneys. Those children then act as informants, threatening, punishing, and finally dismissing any such “independent-minded” teachers.

    So how do we know what laws to respect, as jurors? How do we know when to reject unconstitutional authority? How can we prepare ourselves for the jury-questioning process, and other procedural violations of basic individual rights?

    These are all things that are taught in a free country, where government does not control education.

    In a country that worships Federal Reserve Notes (redeemable at plantation-approved stores for plantation-approved items), whether justly-acquired or not(see: Donald Trump; Pfizer Corporation; etc.), the

    The USA doesn’t need the Whig Party. One (non-government-infiltrated-and-subverted) third party is enough. However, the USA does need electable small-W whigs; small-L libertarians, small-D democrats, small-R republicans, small-C cybernetic technicians, and others on the ballot who understand the proper role of the Jury.

    The detailed platforms of the major parties are irrelevant, and, in the case of the Constitution Party, they actively undermine their stated goals. (The Constitution Party, for example, is inherently irrational, and actively promotes drug prohibition, even though drug prohibition enforcement contradicts the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights).

    Candidates need only show, with sufficient understanding, that they intend to uphold the common law, in order to be minor forces for good in any election. In order to be major forces for good, they must actually get elected.

    Sadly, there are too few educated individuals to elect such candidates, and this will be the case, until life becomes uncomfortable and even untenable for most Americans.

    At that point in time, one would hope that there were multiple avenues to access the ballots of the State Legislatures, so that they can promote a better awareness of the common law, and the fact that it never entirely went away.

    The prior is a blueprint for minor party success, for individuals in any party competent to fully comprehend it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *