 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 859, February 14, 2016 Robert LeFevre used to put it, there is really only one right, the right to be unmolested, no matter what you happen to be doing.
Three (More) Stooges
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise It would appear that Mark Zuckerberg, one of the co-founders of Facebook, just like so many of the digitally-generated nouveau riche zillionaires presently infesting our poor, battered culture, has lost any ability he ever had (assuming he ever had it) to observe objective reality and reason for himself. No doubt encouraged by his fellow piss-wit Bill Gates, he has been sipping at the Kool-Aid of victim disarmament: the self-evidently brainless conceit, attractive only to the deeply mentally and morally crippled, that you can somehow make other people's lives safer by employing hordes of armed and uniformed goons to rob them -- at gunpoint -- of their physical means of self-defense. Never forget it: gun laws are enforced at gun point. Zuckie has grandly decreed unto the planet that firearm sales between and among private individuals may no longer be negotiated by means of his fabulous Internet creation. Mind you, federally licensed dealers may still exercise their rights over his precious "social network" (I suspect he's worried about lawsuits), although I wonder exactly what part of the Second Amendment (written microscopically, in invisible ink, no doubt) mandates that your rights and mine only apply if we have permission from some faraway parasitic federal chair warmers. For what it's worth, I have always felt the same way about limitations on the sales of certain guns, ammunition, and various accessories (like body armor) to cops. Anyway, if it's true, then Zuckie has demonstrated himself to be a feckless idiot. (I've always rather liked that word, feckless, although I've often wondered precisely what it means. What the heck is a feck? And how do you lose it?) I believe I'm going to have to start looking for an alternative to Facebook, and encourage others to do the same, but I want Zuckie and his politically correct censor-minions to throw me off first. I love press conferences, and this wheelchair I'm stuck in makes a great prop. Which brings us to the second subject of this essay, a nasty old woman (two years younger than I am) calling herself Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, failed Senator and failed (Oops -- how many people dead?) Secretary of State. Amid all the usual false claims about American gun ownership, this dried-apple doll who would be President wants to make it harder to obtain the means of self-defense, which means she has betrayed her fellow females twice: first by trying to destroy the women her husband has assaulted over the years, and now, by trying to keep the single item out of their hands -- the "wrong" hands, in her view -- that could halt the perp's illegal and immoral threats. No wonder a bottom-of-the-barrel scraping like Bernie "the Red" Sanders is beating her to a pulp. Better get some ice on that, Hillary. Finally, I saw a piece in Breitbart yesterday about the brittle, middle-aged actress, Julianne Moore. I remember her as a pretty young thing, acting as the house damsel-in-distress on some soap opera, so I've been following her career for a long time. Regrettably, she has gradually turned into a hatchet-faced shrew who specializes, perhaps owing to type-casting, in playing emotionally unstable wackos. Lately she has decided that she hates guns (and, no doubt, armed taxpayers) just like all correctly thinking left-wing Hollywoodite plantation owners. Sometimes I'm convinced that the whole point is to disarm the tax-slaves so that Michael Bloomberg or George Soros gets to be our massa. She wants legislation: all of us peons will have to go down to something like the Department of Motor Vehicles and stand in line for hours while the fat, sweat-stained, mustached women "working" there generate documents permitting us to exercise our natural right to own and carry weapons. The fun part is that Breitbart chose to illustrate the article with a photograph of Moore pointing a huge revolver at the camera. Moore acknowledges that there exists no Constitutional right to own and operate a motor vehicle (I'd argue otherwise), and that makes guns different, legally, from cars. But then, out of thin air, she asserts nonsensically that treating guns like cars wouldn't violate anybody's rights. Ask the women of Cologne what they think of that theory. Ask the real women of the world. The washed-up redhead is wrong (but you knew that). In the first place, under the much-neglected Ninth Amendment, you have a legal right to do any fecking (there it is!) thing you want, and nobody has a legal right to stop you. That's one reason why the Zero Aggression Principle is so vitally important to maintaining civilization; it puts a rational, ethical limit on what people can do that only a drooling cretin (like most of the talk show hosts on the radio) would object to. In the second place, some of the Founding Fathers were actually opposed to enumerating human rights in a Bill of Rights, because they knew politicians and feared that our rights might end up limited to what's in the document -- and to a certain extent, that's just what's happened. In truth, human rights are limitless. Just think: there are millions of peaceful, productive things people have a right to do, many of which the progress-minded Founders probably knew they couldn't anticipate. But in the end, as the late libertarian teacher and thinker Robert LeFevre used to put it, there is really only one right, the right to be unmolested, no matter what you happen to be doing. Because it's urgently important, I'll say that once again, to help you remember it: there is really only one right, the right to be unmolested. Tell Julianne and Hillary and Zuckie.
[ Remember last issue we published an article "A very good and highly innovative alternative to Facebook already exits" for which click this link right here -- Editor]
Just click the red box (it's a button!) to pay the author
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased |
|
|
|
Previous
Contents
Next
