 |
|
|
L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 342, October 23, 2005 Tenth Anniversary Edition, Part 4
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, Re.: "Letter from National SOS Radio Network" http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2005/tle341-20051016-01.html#letter6 With reference to that letter from the National SOS Radio Network, I do believe I would shy away from such a thing for the reasons portrayed by the Jackboots (JBs) in NOLA. What's to stop the JBs from jamming the frequencies used by the FRS? Case in point: If the FRS is used to alert other users of the fact that the JBs are conducting another confiscation of firearms—or whatever else, then what good is that radio when the JBs jam it? If the JBs don't want you to know what's going down, that radio will be as useless as tits on a boar hog. But, on the other hand, the JBs may monitor all voice traffic on whatever channel/frequency, and assess when not to know that something is happening, or conversely decide to act as appropriate—regarding the political climate. Way too many people have loose lips, and expose every aspect of their lives, both locally, and remotely. What better way to take complete advantage of someone, than to know the entirety of their situation? As with telephones, you do not know who is at the other end—unless you can physically see them. Ergo, any statement made by a voice which happens to make itself known over the ether, may just as well be anyone, and someone out to do you harm. Speaking for myself only: I don't want the bloody JBs doing anything—period. If someone is out to harm me, I'd just as soon take care of the matter personally—if you don't mind me saying, as 'things' are very much less complicated that way. And then, there's that final caveat: You cannot ever know the truth of any statement delivered via the ether, as you weren't there to fully comprehend the facts of the matter. In the corollary: Caveat Emptor E.J. Totty
Re: "LISTEN, Libertarian!", by Tim Condon http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle341-20051016-03.html I enjoyed my learned friend Mr. Tim Condon's article, but would like to point a few things out. First off—most of us are shackled to where we are by our jobs, and, often, by owning real estate. Many of us are married, and moving would involve uprooting our spouses, who often have jobs that are no more mobile than ours, as well as our children. Finding work is difficult enough; doing it at long-distance is doubly and trebly difficult, particularly when one has no skills that are currently in high demand everywhere. Get me a job in New Hampshire (or, for that matter, Wyoming, although I am less fond of that idea) and I'll be out of here so fast the speed of light will look rather slow and crippled. Eric Oppen
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, Ken, Re.: [this article] In the above reference, there's a statement of 'truth'—if ever there was one, regarding 'global warming.' The first letter is the most salient, although other letters which follow are certainly relevant. E.J. Totty
A project worth supporting!!!!!!!! Listening to Charles Goyette here in Phoenix this morning. He had Chris Bliss (political comedian and commentator) on now. After all the hooplah over the Ten Commandment displays on public property, Chris decided to form a foundation (aptly named the Foundation Foundation) whose goal is to put up a carved in stone display of the Bill of Rights in all 50 State Capitals. He's starting in Austin, Texas where the Supremes held that the gummy boys could keep the Ten Commandment display up. Chris also found his stone carvers in Austin. When he approached the carvers about the project, they had mentioned that they had been talking about the possibility of putting something in stone that would make a counter statement to the Ten Commandments. They've agreed to work with Chris on the project. Suprisingly (actually not), Chris is finding resistance to putting up Bill of Rights monument. The website is http://www.mybillofrights.org As I said a project worth supporting!!!!!!! John Wilde
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, Re.: [this article] Imagine: Your identity has been stolen, and no matter what, you cannot get it back—all because one or another government entity says that you aren't 'you.' Can you say 'non-person?' Who do you become, when you are no longer you? Imagine further: Government (your choice here) demands that in order to be qualified for a government-issue ID, that you must submit to a genetic test to prove that you are who you claim to be. Imagine—even further—that the material taken from your body is then synthesized (cloned), and is used to incriminate you in an infamous crime. How could you possibly deny the existence of your genetic material at the scene of a crime—especially if the government has agents who will testify to the fact of your presence at that crime scene, even though you could muster the most credible witnesses to contest the matter? This, more than any other reason, is why I am absolutely against any collection of whatever bodily materials by government agencies—or their assigns, for the purposes of identifying anyone, because: Anything may be 'faked'—ANYTHING, save only one thing: The essence of a person, or thing. In classical criminology, the only evidence worth a damn is that which is collected at the scene of a crime. If at any time a government agency deems it necessary to collect data before the fact, then you may well be assured that the matter of data collection isn't for any other purpose save being used to hang an innocent man, or woman, especially at the convenience of the state—or what passes for that. Anything collected at the scene of a crime is evidence; anything collected priorly is an accusation waiting to happen. E.J. Totty
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
