 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 608, February 20, 2011 "WTF?"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Letter from MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway) Letter The First: Subject: Domain Suspension Notice
Dear Ken Holder, The following domain names have been suspended for violation of the GoDaddy.com, Inc. Abuse Policy: NCC-1776.ORG If the domain name(s) listed above are private, your Domains By Proxy(R) account has also been suspended. View our Legal Agreement & Terms of Service policies:
Please contact us by email at mailto:[email protected] for additional information regarding this notification. Sincerely,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Letter The Second: Subject: URGENT ISSUE REGARDING NCC-1776.ORG
Dear Ken Holder,
URL of content:
Please let us know when you have resolved the issue with the USMS, and we will close
the issue.
Thank You,
Letter The Third:
Subject: RE: HuH? NCC-1776.ORG
Dear Ken Holder,
CIDUSM/Protective Intelligence Investigations
District of Oregon
(503)326-5472
Thank You,
Federal Marshals Threaten, Censor Libertarian Enterprise
and
in this issue
Re: "The End of the Minarchist/Anarchist Dispute" by Paul Bonneau So, why don't those who want a "remedial state" get together and form one... and leave the rest of us alone to do whatever works for us? The big problem is that each and EVERY suggestion for any sort of minimal "state" carries the requirement that it be somehow binding on everyone - with or without their consent. The non-voluntary nature of it is the problem, no matter what it's called. You are absolutely right that it would be impossible for these "state" persons to sit on their hands and do nothing. And without any way for people to to opt out, you can bet that the proponents of the "remedial state" would eventually bring us right back to where we are now. Not no rules! No rulers and no slaves. MamaLiberty a.k.a. Susan Callaway
Re: "Twenty-three words or less" by Sov. Madison MacBear
Hmmm. "Faith", as in closely held belief in X, certainly has "scientifically measurable results" - if only from Placebo Effect, which also has scientifically measurable results. Religion also has measurable results. but they sure ain't positive. More blood has been spilled over Religion than ANY Political Ideology. Religion is as much about controlling the individual as Government is. Under both Government and Religion, no individual is Sovereign. That said, think about this for a moment: It is axiomatic that "the power to tax is the power to destroy". So then, why is it that Governments are more interested in destroying (taxing) the individual than they are destroying (taxing) Religion? Obviously they see one as a threat that they do not consider the other to be. Could it be that: Religion and Government are the opposite sides of the same penny slug? Try these 21 words. Religion is not Mysticism because Religion is Government. Mysticism is faith in the unbelievable. Religion/government is faith in the impossible. Re: Russell Longcore's "Egypt, Liberty and Secession" Longcore writes, '...the people of Egypt should demand that a new Constitution be written for Egypt. Otherwise, this historic moment will quickly degenerate into "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." ' While I agree with the general tenor of the article, this statement amounts to some wishful thinking. Constitutions don't do anything. Egypt already has a constitution that allegedly protects freedoms. See the wikipedia article on it. Creating a new constitution that would do the same thing is pointless. The point is not to create some document that some people in power over you can ignore. That itself is just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss." Doing the same thing and expecting different results! The point is not to let them have power over you in the first place. Of course that is easier said than done, but the Egyptians already have a fair start, having ignored authority and set up their own neighborhood watch groups for security. What they really have to do is stop cooperating in their own enslavement by rejecting constitutional fantasies. That is the absolute minimum. And when the US falls apart, as it will, we will have to do the same thing. Paul Bonneau
Re: "Letter from World Net Daily via L. Neil Smith" So, the Nazis were a homosexual pagan cult. hmmm. Well, you can sure read about it in a classic B&W indie comic from the late 80's/90s called "The Desert Peach" about Rommel's "pretty younger brother". now a WebComic.
I would like to announce the launching of the First Freedom Outlaw Brigade Merchandise Store on Zazzle. The concept for the 3 Freedom Outlaws comes from The Freedom Outlaw's Handbook by Claire Wolfe. Each of the Freedom Outlaw characters are available on 14 different items ranging from t-shirts, mugs, bumper stickers, keychains, hats, magnets, hoodies, etc. Each character set is also available with 4 different captions. They are (1) I'm a Freedom Outlaw, (2) An Armed Society is a Polite Society - Robert A. Heinlein, (3) I'm an Anarcho-Capitalist, and (4) I follow the ZAP! (Zero Aggression Principle). So no one gets their panties in a wad about IP, Claire knows about the store and hopes I make a gazillion bucks with it. So check out the store, declare your status to the whole world, buy some items if you like them, and send a few dollars my way.
MacGregor K. Phillips
Atlas Shrugged—The Movie Hi Gang... If you are fortunate, you might be living in one of the 10 so far unnamed cities chosen to exhibit part 1 (of 3) of Atlas Shrugged—the Movie scheduled to be released on April 15. An appropriate date, don't you think? I seems to me, that Ayn Rand's classic is an extremely difficult book to convert to the silver screen. While it is entirely possible to dramatize the novel's basic events, unless something is done to convey Rand's overall philosophy, then what what might emerge would be unsympathetic or incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't read the book or is unfamiliar to Rand's philosophy. If you make the movie to philosophical, then you run the risk of making the movie boring. Hell, after Gary Cooper did The Fountainhead, he said that he didn't understand what Ayn Rand was talking about. I've been listening to the audiobook version of the novel and so much of the book features internal monologues, what her heroes are thinking, as they react to what is going on around them. For example, Hank Reardon being continuously insulted by virtually every word that comes out of his wife's mouth. Also, are viewers going to be subjected to the lectures of characters such as Francisco D'Anconia? In the audiobook, John Galt's radio speech, all by itself, is over two hours. This would really slow down the movie. Anyway, I hope the movie makers were conscientious and made serious effort to do the novel justice. Take care,
Because we agree on lowering taxes and reducing a variety of government programs—among other things—people keep thinking libertarians are conservatives. This of course is not true. While many single issues we support are identified as conservative others would be considered liberal. Perhaps if we could convince conservatives and liberals to compromise by enacting one conservative/libertarian reform in exchange for one liberal/libertarian reform life would be just a bit better. Before you point out how simpleminded this is and silly of me to suggest in print, there are two things I want to point out. It seems to me that on a regular basis conservatives compromise to trade reforms that are harmful to freedom. Secondly, it would be useful to see how a liberal or conservative would react when you offered to trade completing one of their pro freedom objectives for one of the other side's. I suspect that most would reject with great enthusiasm, thus revealing that they hate liberty, or at best consider it secondary to the visions of their ideological peculiarities. Still, a few might go with the deal, and they may be salvageable. I must admit this idea is not originally mine. Back when Heller was decided there were a couple of Court decisions that liberals viewed favorably. As liberals and conservatives decried the Supreme Court for selling out to "the other side" one liberal pundit said, "Hey fine, we give you individual right to bear arms in exchange for stricter search and seizure rules." So what other liberal/conservative swaps can be made that translate into libertarians get everything we want? A.X. Perez
TLE AFFILIATE
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations! |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
