 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 578, July 11, 2010 "It's all about oil"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Dear Editor, I just read this article on the Daily Kos web site, which considers itself utterly "liberal": Why liberals should love the Second Amendment Exactly the kind of intellectual argument which Murray Rothbard used to rationalize how Libertarians and "liberals" are natural allies. Sadly, I believe "liberals" are so wedded to the use of power that anything that actually threatens that power, even basic human rights, are going to remain ignored. I recall that El Neil, during his interesting political campaign, would open any talk to "liberals" with guns, and "conservatives" with drugs, just to shake them up a bit. Because shaking people up is fun! Curt Howland
To which John Hoffman replied: Liberals are on the same side as libertarians when it comes to personal freedom. Conservatives are on the same side as libertarians when it comes to economic freedom. Libertarians can possibly ally themselves with either of the above groups with regards to those particular categories, but because of the collisions with regards to the opposites, it will always potentially backfire on us. Interestingly, this also points out how modern "liberals" and "conservatives" aren't; rather, they're all authoritarians. John Hoffman
If TLE's going to have any reputation at all, someone's going to have to start doing at least the minimum of fact-checking. This isn't the first recent article I've had concerns over, just the first one I've bothered to write the editor about. Don Childers
[Would you like to be our volunteer fact-checker? We need all the help we can get here, seeing as how we have such a low pay scale, viz, to wit: $0.00 -- Editor]
 I think it's about time we settled on Mel for President. Get your bumper stickers here! And do visit my websites below! Rex May
Predictability If a man who weighs less than a hundred and fifty pounds told you he loved the taste of whiskey but hated getting drunk you would probably say "eh" and go about your business. If you saw him at a party down four one ounce shots in a minute at five parties in succession you might decide he was a liar as well as a drunk. He might be a self deceived liar, but he'd still be a liar. Current drug laws have done little to control drug abuse over the years compared to the damage they have done civil liberties. Gun control laws have done little to reduce violent crime, in fact there is a direct relationship between strictness of gun laws and violent crime (more and stricter gun laws, more and more violent crime). Current immigration laws have created an underclass of underpaid workers with fewer rights than others rather than guarantee better pay for American workers. The sum total of these laws is to leave people living in fear, jobless, and less secure in their rights than before. These laws have been creating these circumstances for two generations. If a person consumes alcohol in a manner calculated to get him drunk on a regular basis you know he likes to get drunk. He isn't miscalculating how fast the booze is going to his head. If for two generations laws don't do what they say they are supposed to do but create fear, poverty, tyranny and insecurity it is fair to assume that was their goal from the get go and not simply honest mistakes. When history has proved that certain acts have a predictable result and people continue to engage in them we can predict that these results were always what the people in question were trying to achieve. A.X. Perez
To which Richard Bartucci replied: Failure is never a reason for abandoning or even modifying a politically motivated policy. To quote H.L. Mencken:
This being understood, it is never the objective of the successful politician to solve any problem, real or imaginary, because (as Mr. Smith has observed) solved problems deprive the politician of the excuses under the color of which he proposes actions which would get him shot down like a dog were he to undertake them as a private citizen. The predictability of failure involved in any government policy is in no way a concern of our governing class. These creatures have neither expectation of nor desire for solutions which benefit anyone but themselves and those who have purchased them, and so we - the honest citizenry - should not expect of them either acknowledgement of failure or corrective action going forward. In a perverse sense, they do not consider themselves to have failed at all. They have achieved comfort, power, praise, and positions of respect, have they not? That the society and the nation around them go down in flames is none of their concern whatsoever. Richard Bartucci
The only problem with hanging one's hat on the 14th Amendment (in
all these discussions about Does that matter? Maybe not; the whole Constitution is a joke, as
Spooner points out. But if you don't agree with Spooner, then I
don't see how you can go along with using the 14th as if there is
no problem with it. It's "whistling past the graveyard." Either
legalisms mean something to you, or they don't. Doesn't make sense
to get to pick and choose what legalisms you follow. Constitutions
are a package deal, not an a' la carte choice.
Oh, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, without the
Constitution-trashing and state autonomy-trashing 14th Amendment,
clearly applies only to the Federal Government. The 14th is a
product of the same people who gave us the War of Northern
Aggression. It would never have existed had Lincoln allowed the
South to secede, as the Constitution required him to do. Thus, the
14th is just another example of government "fixing" a problem
caused by prior government action.
By applauding McDonals, people are cheering the increased
centralization of power. This is like making a pact with the Devil.
Good luck with that. Pardon my cynicism.
Paul Bonneau
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations! |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
