 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 503, January 25, 2009 When will enough be enough? When will people stop obeying?
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Re: "Letter from Ward Griffiths" If I had set out to caricature hatred of religious people, I couldn't have done a better job of it than Ward's letter managed. It even has the flavor of the provocateur to it. I did attempt to show how it benefits YOU when you do not indulge in this sort of thing. What benefit does Ward offer if you follow his prescription instead? A constantly churning gut. Blind hatred can be a useful emotion, when you are at the point of needing to kill someone. Up until that point, though, it seems pretty counterproductive—not to mention ugly. By the way, there are a lot more religious nuts with guns than there are libertarians with guns. I'd like to see at least some of them on our side, when the bad times come. Paul Bonneau
Good flag! I'm gonna send your URL to Kenny www.dullhawk.com/timesup.html in fact I'm doing it right now) and have him run a a free ad for you. You may say, "Personally endorsed by L. Neil Smith" if you think it'll help. L. Neil Smith
[Good flag! Click on the banner or URL to see it/buy it and stickers, etc. based on it—Editor] A Looming Anniversary This February 12 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of one who did much for freedom. I refer of course to Charles Darwin. Anton Sherwood
Dear TLE, In www.fff.org/freedom/fd0809a.asp Jacob Hornberger asks the excellent question, "If the people of East Germany could bring down the Berlin Wall, why can't the American people restore a limited-government republic and a free society to our land?" I have a theory about that. In America, we have elections. We have a limit of 8 years on the rein of the President. I believe this creates an atmosphere where the level of disgust with government never reaches the point of crisis needed for most people to cease to obey. For that is what it is: Obedience. The police enforce unjust laws, and people obey. Those who do not obey hide themselves, so that they do not become targets of those who do obey. The few officials with scruples, who realize what it is their obedience is causing, become disgusted. They quit, or they "go along to get along" with a small wink toward the occasional transgressor to salve their conscience for all the people they do entrap and punish for violating statutes but harming no one. And because we have elections, because there is always hope that the next election will make a difference, people who would have rebelled against an honest tyrant long ago continue to dance to the puppet strings believing they have free will because they are allowed to vote for their oppressors. My hope is that, some day, a large number of Americans realize their vote counts no more than as if the rebels voted for King George the 3rd. When will enough be enough? When will people stop obeying? Curt Howland
I started a new BLOG at selfownership.blogspot.com Thought you might enjoy it. Mark Van Schuyver, Ph.D.
Me Blog, You Read please? I needed a place to put the output of my under-utilized brain. I also post my musings to the TLE here. Dave Earnest
Re: "Cops. What good are they?" by by Paul Bonneau
I grew up and spent most of my life in a relatively poor neighborhood. There was a tendency for the police department to respond slowly if at all to calls from Sunset Heights (AKA Acid Heights from its proximity to U.T.E.P. and high hippy population. Take the unavoidable pun in the last sentence as you will.). When one shot a burglar there was a tendency for the police to take a "You bagged 'em, you tag 'em" attitude. The idea communicated was that the shooter had taken car of the problem, so why did they want the cops? Call the ambulance or meat wagon instead. A friend from a more prosperous neighborhood told me in the mid Nineties that he had shot a snake in his yard and the cops were there before the cartridge case hit the ground. Who knew that being poor was the best way to keep the cops off their case? I have a persistent habit of shooting right and low. At anything less than ten yards this means if I aim for your aorta I'm taking out your lower left ventricle. At twenty yards my assailant is losing his left testicle if I rush my shot. So I guess the moral is that criminals in El Paso need more police protection from poor armed honest people. Especially if they value their genitalia. A.X. Perez
From the Onion News Network (bless their warped minds!), a frank discussion about what our government is doing with our money: In The Know: Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole? Source:
Chris Claypoole
Democracy explained in four frames See:
Scott Graves
The DEA Inquisition In October of 1517 Martin Luther published his 95 Theses. His goal was to have a debate over a variety of theological issues. Rather than deal with these questions the Church essentially told him to shut up and do what he was told. As a result western Christianity was divided between Catholics and Protestants and a variety of princes jumped into the breach and wars of religion started in Western Europe that did not end until the 1990's, if then. Arguably religions may claim to have the unarguable truth and that their members must "shut up and do as they're told." In the USA you are free to join whatever church you want and shop around until you find the church you choose to give unquestioning, unswerving obedience. In politics however we are supposed to enjoy freedom to debate issues. In the first week of January 2009 Beto O' Rourke proposed to the El Paso city council a resolution to deal with the drug war going on in Ciudad Juarez across the Rio Grande (40 dead so far this year, 1600 plus dead last year). One of the ideas thrown into the mix was having a debate as to whether or not drugs should be decriminalized, thus destroying the demand for smuggled drugs and drying up the funds to finance the murders. The City Council passed the proposal unanimously. The mayor vetoed it. O' Rourke was interviewed on CNN. The next week City Council was slated to vote to overturn the veto. In that time letters were received from Washington D.C. and Austin indicating that El Paso could lose Federal and State funds if the veto was overridden. The veto was sustained. O' Rourke did not propose legalizing drugs. He simply proposed debating the issue. El Paso is a poor city and can't afford to risk giving up funding. Of course they caved. Beto O' Rourke has become the Martin Luther of American politics. Meanwhile the DEA and other supporters of the war on drugs (it doesn't deserve caps) have made it clear that they are not intellectually prepared to defend their actions and are relying on unthinking acceptance of their point of view. There are arguments for and against the current ban on drugs. However the unwillingness of supporters of this ban to accept constitutional constraints on their tactics and now their eagerness to deny freedom of speech indicates that the best argument against the war on drugs is the hatred of freedom shown by the drug warriors. A. X. Perez
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
Contents
Next
