 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 431, August 19, 2007 "None of the bureaucrats could understand why I was upset."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
After careful consideration I feel that these are the minimum criteria for an acceptable candidate for President, the Senate, or the House of Representatives in 2008: 1. Candidate will credibly promise to use office to rigorously enforce all right guaranteed in the Constitution both inherent (e.g., free speech) and granted (e.g, right to vote at 18 instead of 21). 2. Candidate will support reduction of total tax bill paid by average American from 40-44% to a maximum of 25%. 0% would be better but we're talking all taxes here, not just Federal income tax. Some taxes were actually approved by voters for a specific purpose and debts were contracted with the intention of paying them with this tax money. 3. Candidate will support Constitutional Amendment forbidding the US from committing troops to forcibly overthrow a foreign government without a formal declaration of war. These are bare minimum criteria subject to improvement, expansion and addition. Please note that none of the media supported candidates for President meet this criteria, A.X. Perez
Re: "Big Bother Is Watching", by L. Neil Smith Different approach to Neil's Big Brother is Watching I don't see personal information, written, sound or graphic and any thing but personal property. To have or use my personal property you have to pay me what ever I think it is worth. So if the government (or pseudo government (government controlled businesses) takes my picture then they have to pay me what I think it is worth. In my case I think that my picture is worth about $50 billion dollars. Don't pay don't use. Use and don't pay is no different than robbing a bank and can be treated the same way. Different way of dealing with the same thing. Doug Heard
Re: "Big Bother Is Watching", by L. Neil Smith In TLE#430, El Neil rhetorically asks, "Especially given the events of the past six years, what could be worse?" Which brings up one of the most important, and difficult, arguments against coercive government: What would we do without it? When I mention in not-already-anarchist-friendly forums that I do not believe in coercion as a reasonable means of personal interaction; when I assert this belief to include taxation and other abuses of government, invariably someone responds with how awful people will treat each other without this "Sword of Damocles" threat of overwhelming government retaliation hanging over everyone's heads if we step out of line. Sadly, very often, their derision is such that I am dismissed out of hand from then on. "Political troll" was what I was called this morning. But, I ask in retort, what could possibly be worse than what government does right now? What private criminals, faced with a generally armed population, could possibly rack up the score in people robbed of their lives and livelihoods that governments have? Really, "What could be worse?" Robert Higgs, author of
Crisis and Leviathan, has a talk up on
YouTube in 7 parts most easily seen here:
He refers to it as a "Stockholm Syndrome", the abused defending their abuse and their abusers. Maybe, I wonder, because they've been told so often and so loudly that without government it would only be worse. It could not be worse. People as individuals would step up to the problems at hand and solve them, as they already do every day. "We" already have the private security companies, the insurance companies, private investigators, arbitration firms, education programs, even currencies (oops, that's illegal! How about "collectable commemorative coins"?). There is no element of "government service" that is not already redundant and has always been redundant. All except war. My "government is destruction" moment came when I realized that public school had nothing what so ever to do with education. It was a prison camp, from which it was illegal to escape unscathed until ones sentence was complete. I passed their tests and could have graduated if education were the point, but I was several years too young. A real-world lesson in naked force, and what really sealed the lesson was that none of the bureaucrats could understand why I was upset about it. Government Delenda Est. Curt Howland
Re: "Big Bother Is Watching", by L. Neil Smith 70% of the American people are willing to sbmit to surveillance to get protection from terrorists? After McCathyism, Jedgar's ('member Lili Tomlin's routine?) wanting to blackmail just about everyone about sex, agent provocateurs being used to set up radicals on both sides of the political spectrum, the use of the IRS to try to get the goods on political enemies, ATF fake straw man sales, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, not to mention the number of innocent people terrorized, injured or killed when various agencies raided the wrong house in the "War on Drugs," to mention a few problems, you'd think most Americans ad realized that the guys pulling the surveillance were the terrorists under the bed? They used to ask people if they'd rather live under anarchy or tyranny, the implication given at the time being that gangs of toughs would terrorize the rest of us in anarchy. Even in my younger days as a starry eyed liberal (admit a lot of the rest of you went through the same stage) I realized that the only difference was that in a tyranny the toughs wear suit and uniforms. I want and work to live in a free state, where I have nothing to fear from either. And I happen to believe that a free state will more closely resemble a true anarchy, not the mislabeled chaos described above, than a tyranny. And I'll bet that that's what 100% of the American people (and all the world's people for that matter) want also. A.X. Perez
Guys: I ran across a very interesting article that TLE might be interested in promoting: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/researchers-ana.html The gist of it is that Neal Krawetz, a computer security consultant, gave a presentation at the BlackHat computer security conference that met this week in Las Vegas. He offers compelling evidence that videos attributed to al Qaeda (and that often see worldwide press) were doctored after they were produced. I hasten to add that his work won't provide any clues as to who did the doctoring, nor to what purpose it might have been doctored. His algorithm compares differing compression levels in a given digital video frame to detect alterations that would indicate tampering. I haven't had time to look at his entire presentation (it's available as a PDF from the aforementioned link) and doubt I'd have the expertise to judge its competence. Krawetz has, however, released the source code for his algorithm into the public domain; if his methods are faulty, the eyes of millions of programmers worldwide will catch it. I'm sure that in short order we'll see free programs that will allow analysis of digital video by the public at large. This is no doubt going to become a very useful tool, since it will allow analysis of any source video for evidence of alterations from the original. If we had awards for technical merit in terms of materially contributing to our ability to detect footage that's been altered for propaganda purposes. Neal Krawetz would deserve one. Heck, if TLE wanted, it might even institute such awards to be conferred on an annual basis. You could call this one the "Neal Krawetz Award For Technical Achievement In the Advancement of Freedom." There's certainly no reason to doubt why the FedGov propagandizes against BlackHat. It's exactly this kind of small but vital technical advance that's going to allow us to expose them for the liars and propagandists that they are. Bill Stone
My friends, Re: http://gunslingersjournal.blogspot.com/2007/06/montebello-high-school-california-usa.html I cannot condone these kinds of actions, this sort of thing must be met with the kind of anger the Founding Fathers would have displayed! When we are attacked, when we are desecrated, when we are abused for our generosity and hospitality, it is time to send out the eviction notices. WWJD? To me it means "What Would Jefferson Do?" Add to that the question What Will You Do? In the words of JFK "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!" Thousands of emails and telephone calls have been hurled at Montebello High School in California, they deny their students took part in the—lets call it what it is, treason—that took place on their front lawn. This can no longer be tolerated, born here or born in Mexico makes no difference, this is not a form of speech but a form of biting the hand that protects you. These children are protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution, to express themselves as they deem fit. However, using the rules that they have been given, to try to destroy the very fabric of the Nation that gave those rules and protections to them, well it sounds like a form of suicide to me. Because I can I have to ask you good people reading this, would you stand next to these kids, or the parents that taught them such disgusting values? I can't say that I would. When the wolf comes howling at their door they should be very much alone to deal with it. The Constitution does not guarantee protection in one's home, only the right to protect oneself in one's home, so why should the Police or Fire departments respond when these folks have an emergency? Just a thought, Andrew G Eggleston
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
