 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 806, January 25, 2015
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Re: "The Pope is a Dope" by L. Neil Smith I am a Catholic. And to be blunt I find most papal pronouncements on matters of science and politics to be naïve, to be charitable. That said, a number of political and financial leaders have never been ones to let a little thing like proper regard for the rights of others get in the way of making a buck, pound, or piaster. Of course, I would feel a lot more comfortable if Their Holinesses (Francis isn't the only one) to first admit that capitalism, free speech, etc. are good things and within God's plan then tear into people for violating the ZAP and the law of charity when they exercise such. I'm still embarrassed that the Pope back then supported the CSA in the Civil War as he saw the break up of the US as a good thing and a step towards ending that sinful idea democracy. A.X. Perez
Re: "The Pope is a Dope" by L. Neil Smith Dear Nils, Your observations and questions are so good I'm going to share them; I hope that's okay. The liquid is piss. The boot is any boot. It's an old western expression. Sometimes I forget who my audience is. Phrenology has nothing to do with anything we now know about the human brain. It's been discredited since surgical brain-mapping began, during World War II, I think. Terraforming the Arctic (and especially the Antarctic) is a swell idea. I meant to mention it in The Probability Broach. That's what what Lucy and Pete were up to. Environmentalists would commit seppuku by the thousands. In a short story that serves as an epilogue to Ceres, Llyra marries a Newfoundlander who grew up in a domed colony in extreme northern Newfoundland. I grew up near St. John's. We'll see a lot more of her and her family in Rosalie's World What you have to say about the climate conferences is absolutely true. I've been to scientific conferences and they're big parties. Peter Deusberg said the same was true of AIDS conferences. That's one reason they tried to destroy him. Before 1750, 20 percent of the English population owned 80 percent of the wealth.After 1750 and the Industrial Revolution, that was reversed. (I'm channeling Robert LeFevre, here.) Now, with the suppression of real capitalism, we're getting back to pre-industrial distributions of wealth.This is not progress. That phenomenon is worth a book in itself. Be well, L. Neil Smith
Re: "We'll Always Have Paris" by L. Neil Smith For many years my outspoken position on middle east policy is to carpet bomb the area. Not with explosives but with modern versions of the classic Liberator. I fondly envision clouds of little parachutes each bearing a box wit .45 cal pistol and a couple hundred rounds. Top it off with an admonishment to deal with their own problems and walk away. The only interest americans in general have in the area is oil and we don't need to meddle in local politics to get that. Government protected big corporations cutting sweetheart deals with corrupt governments is a prescription for disaster. If religion wasn't the excuse power and control junkies would find another lever to manipulate the poor shmoes who just want to live. Disarmed people, a patronage based culture, Vast wealth inequality with no chance to prosper but by brutality, nebulous and murky property rights, is it any wonder that there is rage? I say and continue to advocate sell them all the guns they want. Give them free guns if you want. Don't claim to be my agent. Power games and the manipulation of populations is the vilest of human activites. Mark Leigh
Re: "The Testament of James by Vin Suprynowicz" Reviewed by Ken Holder Dear Editor, Thank you for the excellent review of Vin Suprynowicz's latest. I see another member of the freedom community has done the cover art. As one result of your review, I have added the book to my wish list. Sincerely, Tyrone Johnson
[ I thank you, and I'm sure Vin & Cat thank you too—Editor ]
FW: Islam, A German View Our esteemed editor rightly opposes tarring all Muslims with the same brush. But this short e-mail shows us why his view, while accurate, may well be immaterial.
Neale Osborne
[ The only people who can fix the "radical shit-head" Muslims are the people in the Muslim community. They generally know who the trouble-makers are, and it is up to them to put a stop to it.—Editor ]
FWD: - - - - - - - Begin forwarded message - - - - - - -
You've heard it before... The little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?" "NOT I", said the Cow.
"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little Red Hen. "NOT I", said the Duck.
"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little Red Hen. "THAT WOULD BE OVERTIME FOR ME", said the Cow.
"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little Red Hen said, "No I shall eat all five loaves!" "EXCESS PROFITS!", cried the Cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
And the all painted 'UNFAIR' picket signs and marched around the little Red Hen, shouting obscenities. Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little Red Hen, "You must not be so greedy." "But I earned the bread", said the little Red Hen. "Exactly", said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle." And they all lived happily ever after including the little Red Hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand." But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'Party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared......so long as there was free bread that the 'Rich' were paying for. EPILOGUE Bill Clinton got $12 million for his memoirs. Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT? - - - - - - - End forwarded message - - - - - - - Jim Woosley
Re: "Necessary Redundancy" by A.X. Perez "Yet in spite of the above described redundancy the Founding Fathers decided it was necessary to spell out the right of the people to arm themselves. Perhaps this right is important indeed, so important that the Author (s) of the Amendment, the Congress that passed it, and the state legislators who ratified did not want to risk any misunderstanding. They chose to specifically guarantee the right of people to arm themselves in defense of their lives, liberty and property." There is another interpretation. When the 2nd was being written there was a proposal (defeated) to add something into it about "common defense". Most of the debate regarding the amendment revolved around militia. This could be interpreted that there was already a broad consensus that the right to self defense, and the right to arms for self defense, was in existence and did not need to be specifically listed. That the only thing necessary to "spell out" was the right to have arms equal to those of the governments. This would fit well with the old English basis of the laws, the base of which largely revolved around more common infantry weapons or those suitable for self defense. I am going to be a be a bit lazy here and use Wikipedia as a source (in part because I can't access a better one from where I'm at). There is an English common law right to keep and bear arms for self-protection but the possession of certain arms is controlled for the common good. The right to bear arms was not specifically made legal until the Bill of Rights 1689 The English had tried to limit ownership of effective infantry arms. That was part of the reason for the 1689 Bill of Rights. I have not seen any writing on early English law that protected a "commoners" right to own heavy weapons of the time (cannon). The 1689 act, which would have been recent and applicable history for the founders, specifically addressed arms for "defense" and limited them to those "suitable to their conditions". It also allowed for laws to restrict which ones could be owned (and by who). The weapons available in 1689, and what was considered common and effective, were different than even at the time of the American revolution. The bayonet had only been invented in 1680. Prior to that infantry carried a mix of muskets and pikes. It can reasonably be assumed that in 1689 the pike would still have been considered an effective infantry weapon for a poor person. Handguns were luxury items. Slow to load, subject to moisture and hard to maintain loaded and ready to fire, and limited to a single shot, they were far from the ideal self defense weapon. Swords, knives, axes and clubs filled that role for most people—yet were of marginal effectiveness as a primary combat arm in warfare. The Brown Bess was adopted in 1722. At the time of the American Revolution there were better arms available, just no more common of one. The founders would have been aware of that and also aware that arms had improved greatly, and warfare changed, in less than 100 years. Taking all that into consideration, it seems reasonable that the founders would consider arms effective for personal defense and hunting as things that were already recognized in common law. They would fall under the 9th amendment unenumerated rights. However, the right to weapons of ever increasing power and effectiveness, to weapons more powerful than could be readily used for self defense, to heavy weapons, to future advanced weapons, to weapons equal or superior to that of any "standing army", THAT they might have felt needed more specific protection and enumeration. If that's the case, then the 2nd could be interpreted as specifically protecting the individual ownership of machine guns and missile launchers. As protecting grenades and mortars. As protecting combat vehicles and other highly effective "weapons of war". As protecting those weapons and weapon systems that would put the citizen militia on par with the best a major country could throw at them. The 9th would be the primary protection for bearing weapons for self defense, with the 2nd backing it up in that that the individual ownership and carry of weapons were protected no matter how powerful and advanced they were, and even if they were NOT suitable for personal defense. Best regards, Jeff Colonnesi
To which A.X. Perez replied: Brilliant!! I love where you take this. I have always subscribed to the theory that part of Madison et alia's goal in passing the 2nd was to guarantee recognition that the people have the right to own appropriate weapons to overthrow a tyrannical Government. This, of course, serves as a warning for the "ruling class" to behave, thus preventing such uprisings, usually (Look up the Battle of Athens). A.X. Perez
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
