 |
|
|
L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 273, May 30, 2004 "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." —President George W. Bush, speaking at a Gridiron Club dinner, Washington, D.C., March 2001
Send Letters to mr-ed@webleyweb.com
The upcoming Free State Project (FSP) Porcupine Festival in Lancaster, New Hampshire June 24 - June 27, 2004 http://freestateproject.org/news/festival04/index.jsp ... will include a raffle to raise money for the FSP. Included in this raffle are prizes donated by FSP Vice President Alan R. Weiss that are exciting to L. Neil Smith fans! (1) book, Hope, signed by L. Neil Smith and Aaron Zelman. "Hope" has become one of the most popular books amongst FSP literati, and has been read by Libertarian Party candidates Michael Badnarik and Aaron Russo. (1) book, The American Zone, signed by L. Neil Smith. The perfect follow-up to Smith's seminal and wildly-popular The Probability Broach, The American Zone hardback book will take readers on another science-fiction/mystery sure to thrill, painting a picture of a liberty-loving future—and the alternative. (1) DVD video, Innocents Betrayed, signed by Producer Aaron Zelman. A hard-hitting documentary defining the 20th Century's mass murders as being directly related to "gun control" (otherwise known as victim disarmament), this DVD explains the various and brutal genocides and Holocausts at the hands of statists of both the left and the right. Come join us in New Hampshire in gorgeous Lancaster, just a short drive from Manchester's modern and easy-to-access airport. Come check out over 200 liberty-minded individuals plannning on attending the Porcupine Festival, and see whether or not YOU want to be friends—and allies—of individuals who do more than just talk about liberty. Fun for everyone is guaranteed! Alan R. Weiss
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, Re.: "Letter from Todd Andrew Barnett"
Damn! I fell asleep a quarter way through that! Well, 'Mr. barnette' listen up—you twit: If you don't like what's the law (and if you vote—which I presume you do?), and if you don't like what's happening, that's just tough shit. Do I make my point? People like you—who vote, are more the trouble than people as myself, simply because you believe that by voting, you can change things. Well, every time you lift a finger to a ballot, its you who's lifting a finger to oppress the rest of us who don't want to be a part of your corrupt system. You want government? Well I don't. So, how do you figure that by voting you have the right to shove your views up my arse? How do you figure you have the 'right'—mr. libertarian? Just where the hell get off telling me how to live? You may prognosticate endlessly, and proceed to verbalize your arse off—as you did in your missive, but that doesn't make your point of view in the least valid, but rather verbose to the point of extreme boredom. Christ! You must be in love with your own words! The law is 'the law' because you gave it validity by voting. Therefore, tariffs are the law, and if you don't like that, well you have only yourself to blame. Subsidies are the law too, because you whored yourself out to the 'vote.' It's all 'legal' because you 'voted' for it—by marking a ballot. You may bitch endlessly about that, and about subsidies too, but that doesn't change that fact that every time you vote you lend validity to the whole bloody god-damned process. You can take your ideas about 'limited government' and shove them where the sun don't shine. How 'bout that? I said it all in less than half a page! EJ Totty
Regarding various letters to the editor concerning Smith & Wesson:
When you buy an existing company, you assume the company's existing assets and liabilities. If the company owed a bundle to a supplier, you can't simply say, "Screw off! Go ask the previous owners for the money my company owes." The outfit which bought out Smith & Wesson knew this; it's why they bought it—the company carried such a load of PR liabilities that it could be had for pennies on the dollar. Well, folks, just like the money owed to suppliers, S&W still owes an apology to gun owners. It is currently in arrears. Likewise, having never abrogated the offending contract with the government, it is still subject to its terms, should another administration see fit to enforce them. In answer to another assertion; no, I don't necessarily hold companies past actions against them permanently. I even started patronizing K-Mart after they canned Rosie... until they hoisted the victim disarmament banner again. S&W hasn't done that much. If they do intend to show their support for RKBA by producing a new line of firearms, why can't they be bothered to simply say they now fully support RKBA? And apologize. As a marketing tactic, it couldn't hurt, because folks who would be offended by the position probably aren't buying a lot of guns from S&W anyway; and it would help, because then they could regain the business of people like me, to whom it does matter. It's cheap, easy, and would generate more business; so why don't they say they've abandoned they anti-RKBA position? As a corporate entity, S&W has shown no remorse, never abrogated the offending contract (a victim disarmer's wet dream), never addressed the issue at all. The new owners, offenders themselves, figured they could hypnotize the gullible with the glitter of shiny new toys, causing them to forget their principles... and the offense. From the feedback I'm seeing, they figured correctly. Yes, there are companies with which I won't do business, S&W among them. For that matter, there are states I now avoid due to my principles. A bummer, but once you give up your principles, what's left? Carl Bussjaeger
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken—you too, Wendy,
Re.: "A Feminist Version of 'Joe Millionaire'?", by Wendy McElroy
Well, it seems that the same "disparities" of education that Wendy speak of—concerning her parents, existed as well between my own parents. Now, regarding the last comment in her letter: "I still squirm at the thought of how many successful women now seem to view a large percentage of decent single men. Namely, as lesser and lower." No need to "squirm," Wendy! To hell with them! If they figure that they are so much better than a prospective mate, then it's just as well that their genes be flushed from the gene pool. Certainly we don't need any more arrogant people running around! Education among men has always seemed to be the defining line between who associated with whom—at least in polite society. I wonder: Do women of high education pull that same stunt with those of lesser achievement? However, the neighborhood bar never seemed to make any distinctions in that regard. Smart boys are always making dumb comments, and the dumb boys always seem to have a witty comeback to stupid remarks anyway! Allow me to draw a conclusion here: Beer & ale makes everyone equal! Well, anyway, it seems that all of this is nothing but a charade, perpetrated upon all of us by designing men and women who feel that in order to elevate themselves, they must first step upon the back of yet others. And, that to succeed, they must appear to be something they are not: Happy. In closing, I'll comment with just this: If what you say is true regarding marriage, then it's no wonder the divorce rate is what it is for the U.S. : Marriage for money is so stupid. When you marry money, all you get is spent. EJ Totty
Re: "The High Price of Gas", by L. Neil Smith
Another government contribution to the artificially high price of gasoline is additive blending. On his Web site, James P. Hogan (www.jamesphogan.com) showed that if you draw a line from Chicago to St. Louis, the gas stations on that line are required by the Feds (the EPA, et al.) to have at least 50 different blendings. Think of the infrustructure (the oil companies have purpose built distributed blending facilities) and their operational costs. Edward Nash Jr.
Dear Sir Re: "To Hell With Football", by Manuel Miles
I can't begin to relate how much I enjoyed reading "To Hell With Football". Mr. Miles articulated my long-held feelings almost perfectly, and brought to mind the day when, as a junior, I was asked to try out for the high school football team. Even at that tender age, my sense of self-preservation was already highly developed. I declined to be cannon fodder for the scrimmage line (or whatever the hell it's called), and consequently never enjoyed the experience of hobbling around on crutches or developing a limp. As I say, I can't begin to explain how much I liked "To Hell With Football". However, that doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to let another, better and wiser, man sum it up for me. To wit: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the
body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be
the constant companion of your walks."
And now, since this month's issue of Small Arms Review still remains partially un-read, I must be allowed to bid you a civil adieu. Steve Seech
Re: "To Hell With Football", by Manuel Miles
Since I already had plans for 24th, I wasn't at the meeting. So I can't comment on the comments made at the meeting. However, I read the article referenced in the line "The Kaptain's Log, To Hell With Football", waited a day and read it again. It a word, it's crap. Sounds like the rantings of the class nerd who is still envious of the good-lookin' quarterback. Fortunately, he chooses to express himself in words rather than bullets like the kids at Columbine, but the same feelings are there. He claims, "The ball game sports are vital to the creation of an obedient, bleating flock of sheep-like "citizens and that is why every government school promotes them," If they are so vital, then explain how a country like Germany, which doesn't have team sports in schools, produced such obedient soldiers for Hitler. He extols the virtues of individual sports like swimming. I guess being on a swimming "team" doesn't count. However, Hitler extolled the individual achievements of his Aryan athletics and the Soviets extolled the individual achievements of the Communist athletes. Yet, the "team" is evil. I suppose all of us who ever played sandlot baseball, backyard basketball or football are mindless robots of the State since we played as a team. Never mind the individual skill it takes to play the game. Gee, and I thought I was just having fun! Apparently he is also unaware that many homeschooled kids play team sports either thru community leagues or church leagues. So home schooling isn't an automatic anti-team effort. Maybe Libertarians should try a little teamwork. Perhaps we wouldn't be on the fringe. "The game of life is a lot like football. You have to tackle your problems, block your fears, and score your points when you get the opportunity." -- Unknown "In doing your work in the great world, it is a safe plan to follow a
rule I once heard on the football field: Don't flinch, don't fall;
hit the line hard."
I suppose Teddy's quote is too violent for the pacifists. Patrick Henry probably really makes them cringe: "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace--but there is no peace. ... What is
it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or
peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and
slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may
take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
I hope that more serious issues were discussed at the monthly meeting ... like the fact that pro-gov't forces are trying once again to change the state's constitution to remove the $50 cap on fines without a jury and they've succeeded in passing the first hurdle. Si vis pacem, para bellum, Larry
Re: "Reply to Lorrey," by L. Neil Smith
> Last but not least, a lawfully-fought war is a fantasy. War is the
You cannot always and forever avoid war, yet still remain free. Would you have the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, or the minutemen on the Lexington Green, fail to shoot at the enemy because their bullets will end up in their neighbors' houses? "Lifeboat cases" exist because the ZAP, which is promoted incorrectly as the basic moral rule, does not apply in all situations. Lifeboat cases reveal that the the actual moral rule is "be fruitful and multiply", and that the ZAP is merely a good strategy for following the moral rule while in civilization. The amount of due process you are obligated to provide is that amount which you can physically deliver. If someone makes war on you, you will not have the military strength to bring each of the enemy soldiers to trial. That inability to process bad actions through the normal criminal channels defines it as a war. By the ZAP, are you announcing your intention to surrender to any enemy who is willing to tie civilians to the front of their tanks, or confiscate weapons door-to-door in suburbia as was done in Lexington? Jeff Williams
Badnarik Group and Meetup Sunday May 30, 2004 Michael Badnarik won the Nomination for Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party!!! Let's hit the ground rolling with momentum: Please join The Badnarik2004 Members group. It is the oldest established Badnarik group on Yahoo. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/badnarik2004/ Also, please join the Badnarik Meetup group. If we get enough members we will be in the top 25 when people do searches and will run across his name, and help potential volunteers find a way to hook up. It worked wonders for Howard Dean, and we have a real candidate. http://badnarik2004.meetup.com/ while you're at it you might also take and extra couple of minutes and join: http://libertarian.meetup.com/ Thanks, Randy Langkraehr
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
