for the outrage du jour. Wow,
that should help.
How many Constitutional Amendments has Smith called for during the
lifetime of the Libertarian Enterprise? And before that too, presumably
on things like BBS's? Ten? Fifteen? Twenty?
Who knows? Has any one of them ever gotten any farther than the latest
rant? Apparently not. Proposed today, forgotten tomorrow!
Let's imagine every one of the Amendments he's proposed managed
to make it through the entire, interminable amendment process. Would
anything be changed? Before answering this question, consider how well
the Constitution itself has been adhered to, up till now.
Of course, nothing at all would be changed—other than a huge wasting
of the time of Amendment advocates. Governments don't care about
Constitutions. They are just "a goddamn piece of paper!"
Let's look at areas that actually have seen an advance in freedom in
the past. Did any of them result from a Constitutional Amendment? Hell
no!
Instance: Homeschooling. Homeschooling continues to be more and more
recognized by government, despite going against the strongest single
interest group (the edu-establishment) in every state in the nation.
Now some of that may appear to be the result of vigorous lobbying (by
1% of the population, keep in mind), but the real reason is that
governments are frantic to keep some control of homeschoolers,
even if it is nothing but pro-forma compliance of not very intrusive
regulation. They know if they don't give in to homeschooler pressure,
they will lose them entirely, because even with this relatively easy
compliance there is a significant fraction of homeschoolers who go the
non-compliant route. The increased freedom won, results from massive
noncompliance or threat of such.
Instance: Guns. Why do we still have them? Because of the 2nd
Amendment? Hah! It is not even incorporated by the 14th (yet). The
number one priority of every government in history has been to disarm
its subjects, yet we are among the most heavily armed nation on earth,
and getting more so. Why? Fear, that's why. Fear among the ruling
class, that is. When Clinton got his "assault weapon" ban passed, what
did everyone do? Go out and buy an assault weapon, minus the flash
hider, that's what. A previously obscure part of the gun market went on
a long boom, still in progress. How many AR-15's did you see in gun
shows before Clinton's presidency? And let's not forget the explosion
in battle rifle, battle carbine and ammo purchasing that happened as a
result of Bobo's election. That was American gun owners shouting, "go
ahead and try to take them!" Of course some idiots still think we are
armed, and seeing increasing gun freedom, because they wrote their
congresscritter.
Instance: Civil rights. That bit in the 60's didn't get sorted out
because the federal government flexed its muscles and trampled "state
rights". It happened because enough brown people finally stopped going
to the back of the bus, and to hell with what the regulations said. All
the feds did, was take advantage of something that was happening
anyway, and side-track the movement into federal control of state or
personal prerogatives. But nobody rides in the back of the bus any more
unless they want to, or all other seats are taken. Or they just take
their car.
Freedom does not result from a Constitutional Amendment. A
Constitutional Amendment or other legislation may result
from freedom already taken.
I last
nagged Neil about calling for a political solution to the "no
guns on campus" problem. I won't repeat his timid response. Get a pair,
Neil! Your "let's beg government some more" rants are not impressing
anyone. I mean, you couldn't even point out the obvious—that some
people will carry regardless what the law says!
You can't vote yourself freedom, and you can't beg yourself freedom.
Neil's "cure" is no cure at all. Mencken had it right: "All I ask is
freedom. When it is denied, as it always is, I take it anyhow."
My other bitch about that article is the "sky is falling" flavor.
That's not the sound of the sky falling; it's the sound of the empire
breaking up. The medical mess (among other things) will be the end of
this government. Cheer it, don't whine about it. And ignore whatever
comes out of Congress; because no matter what, it can't be good. Want
health? Eat well and exercise, and take advantage of whatever black
market health care you can find or gen up yourself. Small business
wrecked by government medical regulations? Move to the black market and
the barter economy. Atlas shrugged...
The same guy who popularized the notion of Unanimous Consent, who wrote
at one time that "Smith & Wesson Must Die", who wrote "Henry Martyn"
(showing how empires are sustained by theft, torture, rape and murder),
is now writing his congresscritter, begging for something as improbable
as a Constitutional Amendment? Say it ain't so!
Stop believing in government, Neil.
Here's Paul's cure. The analogy is the mosquito. A mosquito sucks your
blood, but it can be brushed off or avoided most of the time. However
it may someday happen that so many are sucking your blood that you are
going crazy, or you are getting attacked by hornets. Time to fumigate.
In other words, live your life as free as you can, starting first in
your mind. Bypass or ignore freedom-trampling laws and regulations. But
if anyone ever decides to war on you, you have only two choices, if you
are a real man or real woman: flight or fight. Anything else, including
threats to write one's congresscritter, boil down to "trying to get
some enjoyment from your rape".
To make this work, you have to control your fear. As Patrick Henry put
it, "Fear is the passion of slaves."
Stop fearing government, Neil.
![[DIGG THIS]](../gifs/91x17-digg-button.gif){kind=small}
Previous
Contents
Next