 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 747, December 1, 2013 Gun control has only one purpose: to intimidate and control the Productive Class.
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Letters from A.X. Perez, Jim Woosley, Roger Clark, L. Neil Smith, John Taylor, and Neale Osborn Caution: Don't Share This! You Might Start A Revolution! [forget libertarian forget republican forget democrat pull your head out of the dark stinky place] And read Down With Power.
[from Amazon.com, and
BarnesAndNoble.com
L. Neil Smith
Re: "A Whale of a Tale, An Open Letter to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" by L.Neil Smith Neil The outcry of PETA to ban the Shamu float from the Thanksgiving parade reminds me so much of a thread on the Clemmys list (an email list about spotted, wood and bog turtles) that I used to be on back in the early 2000s. It was a forum of both hobbyists and breeders of turtles and also conservation oriented people. You can easily imagine the potential for conflict there given that the latter group tends to frown upon the passion of the former—who they see as essentially greedy potential poachers or recipients of stolen property—ie wildlife that must be kept wild and belongs to everyone and should not be reduced to private ownership. This has long been the bane of many in the reptile hobby and virtually any other hobby involving live goods—be it fish keeping, aviculture, or horticulture. It is the culmination of the worst aspects of the old conservation movement legacy of Theodore Roosevelt which established the Prohibitionist/ contraband mentality of the law enforcement aspects of the American wildlife management system and the fascistic post 1970s deep ecology environmentalism and animal rights activism—which essentially strives to lock up natural resources and put the natural world off limits to human beings. Replacing "wise use" with "hands off". It was essentially the prevailing philosophy of the professional biologists and other "experts" on that list—and another about native fishes to which I belonged. And if you argued otherwise—then you were branded a selfish evil curmudgeon who had to be discredited and silenced—or worst case scenario—thrown off the list or expelled from the organization—least your politically incorrect thought crimes offend sensitive ears or corrupt the minds of others who might come to understand that uncritical acceptance and embrace of environmentalism and a blank check to environmental policy makers in general means an end to their hobby in the long run. Selling environmental polices is very much like the selling of Obama Care. You have to keep people in the dark about the bad consequences and painful sacrifices involved in their actual implementation—until they are implemented. As a pun on a former "House Screecher" you have to pass the bill before they find out what's in it—because if they find out—it will be unlikely to pass. As for that thread of thoughtcrime that your mention of the controversy over the Shamu float reminded me: there was an "expert" on the Clemmys List who was giving advice on how to give presentations about the conservation of rare turtles to school children. He advised against using living examples on grounds that it might encourage kids to want them as pets. Much like publishing photos of rare plants is a bad idea because such books often become wish lists or shopping lists for plant collectors (I kid you not—it's in print somewhere out there!) God forbid—being they have enough worries dealing with a potential constituency of established hobbyists that might organize if they are tread upon too much—much too quickly. The name of the game is incrementalism. In the long run its not just Dolphin Free Tuna but Tuna Free Tuna—as one animal rights activists put it. In the short run it is a matter of dealing with those who are already deeply devoted to their passions and habits—maybe placate them with grandfathering and special permits to buy their cooperation and silence while working to phase out the sub-culture that has grown up around such interests by barring new entrants and making a world in which human interaction with animals, hunting, keeping pets or planting trees and interaction with the natural world in general is essentially illegal and accepted by future generations as the social norm. I learned this long ago from the editorials of Philipe DeVosjoli— founder and president of the late American Federation of Herpetoculturalists (an association devoted to reptile hobbyists and breeders) in the pages of The Vivarium Magazine. He talked a lot about the concept of biophilia—which is essentially an interest in other Lifeforms—animals and plants that is a natural inborn healthy affiliation of most human beings. Reptile keeping—and the crafting of naturalistic habitats—vivariums—by hobbyists is one expression of Man's love of the natural world. Beautifully planted aquariums, garden ponds or greenhouse conservatories are others. I have dabbled in all of these much of my life and have long loved it. I have also long dreaded the coming of the day when those who thought such activities to be immoral or environmentally unsound would gain the political power to impose their beliefs on society and force everyone to comply. DeVosjoli wrote of that world view which he described as the doctrine of separateness—sort of the polar opposite extreme of the old Judeo-Christian world view that portrayed Mankind as the centerpiece of God's creation and that everything was put upon this Earth for human use. Modern environmentalism takes the stance that we—human beings—are essentially alien interlopers on the planet and must be kept separate from the rest of the natural ecosystem in order to keep us from corrupting and destroying it. They hold that species and ecosystems have intrinsic value—the right to exist for their own sake independent of human utility. Indeed the very idea of any use by humans—be it commercial exploitation—or even the private gratification of having one—or a few as a pet—is total anathema. That was the mantra of the conservation people on the turtle list— and the native fishes forum and you dared not debate it. The way that environmentalism and animal rights-ism traps hobbyists is much like the way the political Left in general traps people by appealing to their interests and compassions. Like most Americans are charitable and care about the plight of the poor and downtrodden, we also love animals and nature. Reptile and fish hobbyists love the creatures they keep and breed—and are concerned for their welfare in the wild—much like hunters and fishermen want to conserve the objects of their enjoyment for future hunts and fishing trips—and the enjoyment of future generations. So we invited the conservation people in and they took over and started dictating. It's their way or the highway and no room for compromise. Much like one of the future predictions in the Vivarium editorials: access to the natural world will be severely limited if not illegal. You are going to live in a little cubical and if you want to see the trees—you go to a tree museum and pay twenty-five bucks just to see em—just like in that famous song! End of story. No exceptions, no debate.
As for this thread—those in the reptile hobby and other hobbies mentioned and them some have every reason for becoming libertarians. Many are still manipulated by their biophilic sentiments or don't see the danger they are in. And even the animals they love. Conservation authorities and activists would rather see rare Asian turtles going to food markets in China than end up being captive bred in the USA—and there are numerous horror stories about animals being confiscated and destroyed. Because its more about the culture of compliance and control of resources than actual conservation of anything. And the ends in pursuit of an agenda always justify the means! I could go on—but I might just save that for a future article. My friend the Historian is here to help fix a furnace. I must run! Jeff Fullerton
[ Regarding the note on last issue's main page (reprinted just below
this note on this page) we received lots of comment—Editor ]
 Law Professor Says "Time to Repeal and Replace that Second Amendment" Mary Margaret Penrose, a full-time professor of law with Texas A&M University in Fort Worth, has called for the full repeal of the Second Amendment, according to an article in the New Haven Register News in Connecticut. [Read More] (From the folks at Cheaper Than Dirt! ("America's Ultimate Shooting Sports Discounter") cheaperthandirt.com: This bint is dumber than she looks (I refer to her misuse of her intellectual abilities, having no knowledge of or interest in her sexual proclivities). The 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federales. The Fourteenth Amendment extends it to the states and local governments (see Heller and MacDonald). Now, there are readers of TLE who are not real fond of the Fourteenth but a full time professor of law should know this. So what she really wants is a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, the one Liberals/ Progressives of their time passed to guarantee the suzerainty of the Central Government after the Civil War and incidentally the rights of minority group members. In the liberal world view this would leave left handers and others at the whim of government bureaucrats, leaving minority lips firmly attached to liberal toes (or other portions of anatomy), clients constantly seeking the approval of their patrons. Either she is ignorant of constitutional theory to the point of professional incompetence (not unusual for a liberal law professor I've been given to understand) or another liberal shows her claws. A.X. Perez
Ken, Dr. Penrose got her JD from Pepperdine. While her biography doesn't go earlier than that point, it is very possible that she is a sixth columnist from California rather than a Texan, and she is certainly California-influenced. She is definitely not a Texican. I won't disagree with your assessment of her mental faculties. Jim Woosley
Saying that she has shit for brains is probably being over generous. I would suspect a total vacuum. Roger Clark
A.X. Perez said: The 2nd Amendment only applies to the Federales. The Fourteenth Amendment extends it to the states and local governments (see Heller and MacDonald). Not true—and extremely bad (if highly traditional) interpretation of the law. The 14th Amendment, and all the business about incorporation" are purest-driven crap. As TLE Editor Emeritus John Taylor has been at pains for many6 years to point out, the whole question of what entities are limited by the Bill of Rights is covered by Article 6, Section 2, to wit:
This also puts treaties in their proper place with regard to the Bill of Rights, but that's a topic for another day. L. Neil Smith
I agree with the extension of the Bill of Rights through Article 6, Section2. However, the Supreme Court has ruled In Heller and MacDonald that it was the bedamned 14th that bound the states and local government to respect people's right to keep and bear arms. Consider the phrasing you quoted a criticism of Frau Doctor Ignorant Bint's ignorance of her own belief system, not a disagreement with John Taylor's interpretation of the Supremacy Clause. A.X. Perez
As El Neilyo well knows, one of my pettest peeves! Never forget that the 14th Amendment, regardless of rhetoric contrariwise, was just one part of the punitive measures imposed by the Federales (and their evil carpetbagger minions), on the thirteen occupied sovereign Southron states and the unconquered rebels therein. They called it "reconstruction", while communist puppets call it "reeducation"; no matter what the PC appellation, its blood name is tyranny. When the Supremes rule "in our favor", we cheer; when they do not (which is far more often), we deride. We should be critically examining the merits of the case, not the outcome. The USSC ought to be an arbiter of last resort in a very few clearly constitutionally-specified cases. Instead, it is largely an organ of the executive branch, pontificating on issues in which it should have no say. This is nowhere more true than in cases like Heller and McDonald. John Taylor
More and more, I tend to adopt Thomas Jefferson's view of the federal judiciary, and more specifically, the SCOTUS, to wit:
We see this happening daily. Far too many Victim Disarmers use Scalia's opinion that there are "reasonable restrictions on the 2nd Amendment" (Yeah, AL, I know) as some sort of trump card. It isn't. Marbury v Madison was a blatant power grab. Dredd Scott was as unconstitutional as it comes. Their ruling on Obamatheft... er care... was a masterful piece of Constitution violating, lying, and blatant sucking the dick of a sitting president. The SCOTUS is following Jefferson's quotev above, and achieving the predicted result. Neale Osborn
getting the lead -er- in Okay, so the EPA has enacted Plumbium Prohibition. What about lead fishing sinkers? DIY with a Pb bullet mold? Has lead finally become valuable enough to smuggle? Renata Amy Russell, Signatory (a lead-pipe cinch)
Re: "What are we going to do about it?" by Sean N. Gruber Sean writes:
We would lose, that is what would happen. Remember Ft. Sumter. The South was entirely justified in bombarding that fort—and it was the dumbest thing they ever did, because it rallied the population in the North around the tyrant Lincoln. Most people have figured this out. Our actions have to seem reasonable to those around us. Responding with violence to an assault sounds reasonable (even if the courts don't agree). Pre-emptive violence does not. Besides which, it's (arguably) against NAP; and it is collectivist, treating every cop like each other. The day may come for cops to stop wearing uniforms for fear of being shot, and to stop driving around in cop cars bothering people; but that is after the revolution or rebellion is well and truly on, and it is not a way to start a revolution—unless you don't mind losing it. Paul Bonneau
TLE AFFILIATE
|
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
