 |
|
|
L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 285, August 22, 2004 Maybe we should have simply started speaking Mandarin?
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Yet Another Letter from EJ Totty And Yet Another Letter from EJ Totty Re: Letter from Joel Gehman to TLE on 25 July 2004
As I've explained in my novel Molôn Labé! and in various posts, an economically successful Wyoming migration will necessarily begin with business owners (many of whom bringing their company and people with them) rather than with unaffiliated employees. Bring a business to Wyoming, or start one there, and others will relocate. "If you build it, they will come." For example, Javelin Press will, by 2005, be able to support up to 3 full-time staffers. And, do not underestimate the growing wave of entrepreneurship. It has been projected that by the year 2020 the largest employer will be "Self." Yes, Wyoming has a sparse population, but for well-understood pre-21st century reasons. Just because gas/oil/coal, minerals, agriculture, and tourism were all that Wyoming could capitalize on before the Internet, FedEx, etc. does not mean that Wyoming must remain in the mid-20th century. In fact, quite the contrary. With its extremely favorable business climate, low-no taxes, and cheap energy, Wyoming is poised for huge growth. This ripe plum is ready to be re-discovered by a modern wave of western pioneers who understand that Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, and New Mexico are not only filling up, but becoming increasingly inimical to Liberty. This year I will draft a Wyoming business plan for dozens of companies well-suited to move to Wyoming. Buck knives recently relocated from Kalifornia to Idaho for reasons of lower taxes and costs of living. In that regard, Wyoming is an even better choice—if not the best choice. If it's merely an immediate job one seeks without regards to liberty, then sure, other states are better than Wyoming. But the Free State Wyoming is looking for people who have not only a strong pioneering spirit, but some "X-ray vision" to see beneath the surface. Think of Wyoming as a superb penny stock, ready to take off. Buy low, and sell high—vs. buying into a stock which seems quite popular but is fundamentally topped out. Also, there is an undeniable positive correlation of sparse population to existing political liberty. Wyoming is free (along with Montana) in that best early American sense—and if enough of us move there, we can keep it that way. Wyoming is the lower 48s' best opportunity for this century. All it needs is a couple of thousand libertarian business owners to move there, creating ready opportunity for libertarian employees. In summary, the "paradox" described is one easily solved in today's Information economy. The rural West is already America's latest migration wave. I've seen it with my own eyes in Durango, Colorado. If you and I don't move to Wyoming to retain its Western liberty, our philosophical foes will soon enough discover it after they realize they've soiled Arizona, Oregon, Idaho, and Colorado. A final point of correction: I am not, at this early stage, looking for 20,000 or even 5,000 relocators. Rather, my first goal is just 100 within one of the FSW's three selected counties. 100 of us within Crook County, Wyoming will enjoy significant economic synergy, and a nascent political force. My next goal is for 1,000, which—with less than one-third indigenous support—can take the reins of government in a county 31% the size of New Hampshire. Free State Wyoming is not a state legislature "top-down" model requiring 20,000+ relocating activists, but rather a county-level "bottom up" model which needs far fewer people. And, our county model is sequential and maintainable. The FSP has "bet the ranch" on statewide political influence and victory. My FSW model, however, envisions realistic, sequential, and maintainable county goals. And even if the FSW does not succeed as statewide, a free county or two along the way is much more than we have now. Since the FSP is not focusing on counties, they've no intermediate and maintainable goals preceding statewide success. It's a very risky model, to be applied within a state with 2.7x the voters of Wyoming. And, the attraction of NH contains its own disadvantage for the FSP: nearly 20,000 people (i.e., generally statists of varying hues) are already relocating to NH every year! How the FSP hopes to keep pace with NH's rapidly increasing population I cannot imagine. So, the fact that Wyoming has not yet caught on amongst the American people and is not currently attracting large numbers of employee migration I see as a huge benefit for the FSW. Western free staters have the chance to buy in now, before the public catches on. I recall an Aspen ski trip with my family in 1971. John Denver's "Rocky Mountain High" was a hit, and Colorado was becoming very popular. The condo we stayed in was for sale at $40K. Sensing the coming Aspen boom, my mother urged my dad to snap it up. "Too much money," he replied. Today, the condo has naturally been raized and the land sold for Tokyo prices. Twenty years later, she discovered Telluride. Again, she sensed the coming boom and tried to pitch him on a corner main-street lot for $106K. He declined. The next year (after likely changing hands a couple of time) it sold for $1.2M. Wyoming is 1971 Aspen. Wyoming is 1992 Telluride. It is under the radar of even Ted Turner. Crook County in the Black Hills has the beauty of Colorado at a third the price and a fifth of the liberals. If employment is the only thing stopping you, then get in touch with us at the Free State Wyoming. Business owners are moving there this year and next, and one of us may have a job opening for you. Molôn Labé! Boston T. Party
Re.: "On The New Anglo-American Alliance: Lets Start Here First", by Alan R. Weiss
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, and Alan, Boy, I dunno 'bout that! Here I am, just getting comfortable with the metrology and lexicon of the several changes I have been subject to, and along comes Alan—with a forty tonne (or would that be 'ton?') hydraulic ram, attempting to 'shove' more changes—somewhere. Methinks—if you don't mind me thinking, that there's a whole lot more important things in this world to worry about. Take for instance, the relative inconsistency of the English language. Let's look at the idea of 'opposites.' Is 'screwed-up' the opposite of 'screwed-down'? Is the idea of a 'screw job' the opposite of an 'unscrew job'? How does one express the idea of not having been 'screwed' in a way that expresses the opposite of having been 'screwed'? And, how does one get 'unscrewed'? As well? Does the idea of 'unscrewed' imply that a screw-job is in the wings? Now, then, let's look at the term 'Pissed-off'. Is that the opposite of 'Pissed-on'? This is not unlike a light switch: It's either on, or off. So, if you ain't pissed-off, then you must be pissed-on. Several of my friends and associates have expressed the thought that it's better to be pissed-off, than to be pissed-on. I would suppose, except when one is aflame ... Please believe me: I absolutely endeavor to not be aflame! Therefore, and therefor, I shall be permanently pissed-off! The term hysterisis, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary (v4.0) is:
I use the term to describe how it feels for someone to suggest a change—and someone else immediately implements it, but because of the inertia of human psychology, the immediate implementation causes no end to grief in almost all areas of human existence. Because, as soon as you get half-way through that change, someone else suggests and 'even better' way, and here-we-go-again! However, I am somewhat ambivalent to the ideas expressed by Alan. Because some people in commerce have adopted both systems of measurement (English & Metric) I have been forced to learn both, in order to discover if I'm getting all that I am paying for. In any case, both measurement systems have unique usefulness, and the American system has used both in what may be described as 'applicable to the need.' But, in the matter of 'American English'? From where I see things, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. American English is so bastardized with crappy spellings of words, that it's any wonder anybody can understand what the hell is being communicated anymore. Many words from the English lexicon were intentionally misspelled by the elites in the grammar world—in order to, as they said—make spelling easier. Heaven knows that even the educated misspelled common words all the time. But was that any reason to poison the language with words spelled such that they no longer relate to the actual meanings derived from yet other languages? Word spellings are indeed a critical thing, because those spellings connote the essence of a thought expressed, having, as they do, a connection to something else even older. If you break the chain of what is connoted, then you also break the link with the past. I have several Brittish friends, and when they get going with 'their' slang words, I am completely lost, and must ask for a translation. Included in this is what I will appropriately label: Change for change sake. I wonder: How many who read this know what a 'Procurator Fiscal' is—without looking it up? That term, in the British sense, is discovered here: http://www.procuratorfiscal.gov.uk/ Why, I wonder, did we change the name to 'District Attorney'? Was it just to disassociate ourselves with the past? Did we hate ourselves so much, that we sought a completely new distinction? If that was the case, then maybe we should have simply started speaking Mandarin? In Liberty,
Dear Sirs, In the article in TLE #284, "On The New Anglo-American Alliance: Lets Start Here First" by Alan R. Weiss (http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle284-20040815-02.html), I find a major and egregious error. The word "y'all" is properly spelled "yawl" and is a sailing boat with the mizzen mast stepped abaft the sternpost, and otherwise cutter-rigged. Please remember that in Newspeak all words have only one meaning—and that is decreed by our Fearless Leader. Also, (There just had to be an "also", didn't there?) many of our contributors have a devastating problem with singular and plural agreement within sentences! "He", "she", "everyone", "it", named groups and named individuals are singular. "'Republicans", "democrats", "human beings" (not the same as Rs & Ds, at all...), two or more individual members of a group, "they" and "them" are plural. Especially "they" is plural and may not refer to any singular noun! Sheesh! All writers will henceforth adhere to the singular / plural separation rule or they will sound silly and unlettered. And they will be thrashed to death with rhubarb stalks by functionaries of the Ministry of Truth!!! Sniff! Now that we have dealt with the matters of great import, you may go back to your trivialities of philosophy, political freedom (Hah!) and private space-flight. Yours in Ultimate Condescension, Michael Bradshaw, S.B.
Re.: "Survey of the Bill of Rights: Article 1", by Ron Beatty
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Ron, A most excellent post by Ron! In the way of a comment, let me state just this, regarding religion and it's exercise: Whether it was perfidy or ignorance, which was first used to implement the idea of what has now become the common practice of denial-of-religious-practice, it is now actually a foregone conclusion that religious exercise is without legal premise on 'public grounds' expressly intended for mandatory participation. The only way the Congress gets away with what it does is because it isn't mandatory for Senators or Representative to be present in chambers, except perhaps in certain circumstance. Like everything else that the USG has permeated with excuses for intrusion, the whole idea of not being able to exercise religion was first invented back when 'public schools' were first 'instituted'. Granted, back then, the religious elite took advantage of a 'good thing,' and mandated that every child pray at the beginning of classes, followed later by the 'pledge of allegiance.' I was subject to ridicule—both at home and at public school! See? My parents who are Episcopalian, put me in a Catholic boarding home run by an order of French Nuns—from Canada. I was taught to say my prayers in French. When I got home, such a thing was Extremely frowned upon!! So, I had to learn those prayers all over again: In English. But, being as how those 'prayers' were said for the Epicopalian denomination? The other kids took exception, seeing as how they were Catholic. Now you know why I am so screwed-up! I consider that it has something to with 'hysteresis', right, Alan? In Liberty,
Re: (letter above) Eschew on the prayers and follow your own path! Alan R. Weiss
Re.: "Seeking Criminal Justice in Civil Court", by Wendy McElroy
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Wendy, What we have, we have been handed down. What we have has been screwed, blued, and tattooed by the endless finagling of liars, cheats, thieves, and murderers. By my way of thinking, the whole system of 'justice' needs to be overhauled to eliminate the civil tort completely. If someone has done a real harm, then that should be considered a crime in the real sense. If not? then there was no crime—period. Additionally, if there is to be any recompense for a criminal act, then what better place for that to happen than in the sentencing phase of a criminal trial? This would also eliminate the entirely specious government ploy of using civil torts against 'property.' If you can't prove a crime, then there simply can't have been one, and the government gets to pay for the whole shebang, including punitive damages exceeding trillions of dollars! When the 'citizens' get the tax bill for that last screw-up, maybe they'll get a life, get rid of stupid laws, and get the blazes out of the rest of our respective faces with stupid laws. But, I'm not holding my breath. In Liberty,
In addition to my last? It seems that the farther the ball swings, the more people begin to realize just how ludicrous 'swinging' actually is.
You'll pardon my remark here—I hope, but politics is just like sex: You get exactly what you thought you would: A screw job.
Washing windows is a 'two-sided' affair. In politics, only one side gets cleaned, while the other gets a 'fog job.'
In Liberty,
Re: "On Marriage and Bureaucrats", by Jonathan David Morris
I've been thru the marriage thing a few times, but never encountered the bureaucracy as described by J. Morris. It did remind me of something I read and saved recently because it made so much sense. Michael Badernak said: "If you have a marriage license, what do you have permission to do now that you did not have permission to do before? Who gave you that permission, and where did they get the authority to give you that permission in the first place?" In a world of ever more intrusive government, perhaps "marriage" is an issue that is in the power of an individual (two individuals) to remove from the nanny state. Just say "NO!". Dennis Lee Wilson
Re: Letter from Roy Tellason
Dear Editor, Roy Tellason suggests that he doesn't know that it's much better anywhere else, really, than New Jersey or Pennsylvania where the liquor stores close at ten p.m. Well, I'm reminded that it is better in New Orleans. Whether because it is the "city that care forgot" or because of the Napoleonic code, because French people have been looser about drinking and certain other matters, because of the grand tradition of cathouses, because Gen. Butler wanted it that way during the occupation, or for some other reason, the bars and liquor stores don't close in New Orleans. You can get liquor 24/7. Is this better? It is certainly different, which is one of the many things I count on New Orleans for during my frequent travels there. The New Orleans Investment Conference in November is an annual gold economy conference, well worth a visit. Plus they have Mardi Gras in style during the late Winter.
Texas used to arrest people for selling "hot oil" over the state line in Louisiana. No end of narrow mindedness where state control is involved.
In another interesting twist, Louisiana for many years held out against the extortionate withholding of federal highway funds and refused to raise the drinking age from 18. They caved in a few years back, but there is much less checking of ID in New Orleans than elsewhere I've been.
Wow. Seven-eleven. The stores named after July 11th, when Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton in 1804.
The furniture lobby strikes again! Regards, Jim Davidson
The weapon of choice of Samhain terrorists everywhere: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/08/17/la.sillystring.reut/index.html John Taylor
Seen this? It's from http://www.strike-the-root.com/ "The Conscience of Joe Darby", by Wil S. Hylton
In Liberty,
For Immediate Release
Solid in the Southwest: No Bounce, but Badnarik Holds at 5% Albuquerque, NM—After two weeks of advertising and a week in New Mexico, twin Rasmussen polls show Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik right where he started: At five percent. And he's okay with that. "We're a small campaign," says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. "We put about $75,000 into New Mexico—a fraction of what the other candidates had already spent there. Then George W. Bush and John Kerry threw everything they had at us. They mauled each other. But we're still standing." "Would I have liked some 'bounce?' Sure—I'd like to be carrying the state," he continues. "But I'll take what I can get. Usually major party attention sends third party votes fading. Ours didn't fade. And it won't." Campaign manager Fred Collins is more effusive. "As of June, Kerry had spent $300,000 in New Mexico, and Bush about $60,000. Badnarik came in with one sixth the money, and forced the issue. The GOP went into action to put Nader on the ballot, because Badnarik was here. George Bush announced his troops withdrawal from Europe. He could have announced it any time, but it was New Mexico that moved it to the front burner." Badnarik's ad campaign took both Bush and Kerry to task for the war in Iraq. "And that had to hurt Kerry. Bush's voters already knew where he stood. Bush did steal a little of our thunder by positioning himself as wanting to bring troops home. It's nice to have some thunder to steal." Adds Badnarik polling director Rolf Lindgren: "George Bush spent more taxpayer money just flying into New Mexico on Air Force One than Badnarik spent altogether. Kerry's train rental fees probably dwarfed our total expenditure, too. They got 100 times as much free media as Badnarik. They tailored their messages to Badnarik's 5%. And at the end of the day, they just switched places. Kerry was ahead, within the margin of error. Now Bush is ahead, within the margin of error. And Badnarik is still covering that margin and deciding the outcome." The latest poll also shows significant boosts in name recognition for both Badnarik and the Libertarian Party. The campaign is keeping its future plans under wraps for the moment. But, says communications director Steve Gordon, "we'll turn up in another battleground state soon. The Bush and Kerry campaigns should probably stock up on aspirin and antacid." Badnarik for President Campaign
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
