L. Neil Smith's
The Libertarian Enterprise

Number 55, September 15, 1999
Fire Still Burning

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

L. Neil Smith, Publisher

John Taylor, Editor

Vin Suprynowicz, Honorary Editor

Ken L. Holder, Webmaster

Alan Wendt, Internet Service Provider

          The Libertarian Enterprise is available at http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/. Web edition of TLE courtesy of Ken Holder.

          To receive a text version of The Libertarian Enterprise by subscription, send an e-mail message to libent-request@ezlink.com In the body of the message, please type: "subscribe [your email address]" (without the brackets). E-mail distribution courtesy of Alan Wendt.

          Permission is hereby granted to quote from The Libertarian Enterprise, provided that the article is printed in full, recognition is given to the author, and TLE is cited (please mention the issue number).

          You may also forward the text-based e-mail edition of TLE intact without restriction (but be sure that your intended recipient will welcome the rather large message in his/her mailbox!)

          Note: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, the material contained herein is distributed for nonprofit educational purposes, and for other fair use purposes including criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research.

Editor's Notes
by John Taylor


          I must be making one king-hell omelet, 'cause I surely seem to be breaking a lot of eggs lately. First things first.

          Many of you noted that TLE was late last time. That circumstance is entirely my fault, and I humbly apologize to all subscribers -- especially those who rely on e-mail delivery, which was even slower than web-based delivery last issue. By way of explanation (not self-defense), I have been having e-mail troubles lately -- troubles that proved more difficult to resolve than they should have. But, if you receive this edition on time, those problems are solved, presumably for good.

          Secondly, I owe a special apology to Scott Paul Graves, whose article title I mangled in TLE #54. I attempted to correctly edit his article's German title, and in the process got my pronouns crossed. What was titled "WO SEINE DEINE PAPIEREN?" should have read "WO SIND DEINE PAPIEREN?", as reader Scott Bieser correctly -- and quite promptly -- informed me (see LETTERS TO THE EDITOR, this issue).

          Finally, there are two matters from my EDITOR'S NOTES column in TLE #54. In one paragraph, I stated:

They pooh-poohed black helicopters and used them as a symbol of "right-wing paranoia" -- at least until they were conclusively proven to be quite real, along with all the curious and frightening maneuvers associated with them.

          A reader wrote and asked for a cite that proved my assertion. I was forced to reply that I did not have a cite, but rather believed that the body of evidence from articles posted from all parts of the country indicate that in fact the concept originally named the "black helicopter" theory was in fact valid. The issue here is the changing nature of military training (MOUT, SOLIC, OOTW) and its implications for American citizens ... not whether the helicopters used are black or "very dark green".

          As to the second matter, a friend responded to my notes on Waco, specifically where I stated, "... I would be willing to bet that those shooters were not FBI, but JTF6 (Delta)". He wrote:

Having lived in El Paso (JTF6 is located on Fort Bliss there), I can tell you JTF6 are not Delta ... indeed, all they are is a clearinghouse of sorts. If law enforcement is looking for assistance from the military, they find the people to do the job. They may find Delta or Seals or whatever is called for, but they are not themselves an elite unit nor do they participate in whatever it is law enforcement needs done. They obviously need to do more oversight, but in real terms JTF6 are just military bureaucrats.

While it is probably common practice to refer to any military resources obtained through JTF6 as being "from" JTF6, if you were to find the actual soldiers involved they'd certainly be from a real Delta or Seal or Marine unit not affiliated with JTF6. Obviously you'll have a hard time finding out who was on the ground at Waco (or in the choppers) to ask them - as if that would be the first question on your mind - but I'm certain that is what they'd tell you as well. Saying they were actually JTF6, and that JTF6 is Delta, is so easily disproven that it may be one reason people don't give more credence to our side.

          Here once again, the name (JTF6/Delta) is not the issue -- I am fully aware of the differences (and the connections that they share). Note that my correspondent does point out that it is "common practice" to refer to troops obtained through JTF6 as from JTF6, and that was exactly my intention. It is my understanding that Justice requested assistance from JTF6, and that whichever individuals were actually supplied were supplied as as result of that request. It is also my understanding that those individuals were Delta troops, who are, in fact, part of a larger organization in and of themselves.

          So to those who "... don't give more credence to our side" as a result of any misimpression I may have fostered through my phrasing, here are three analogies for you: (1) "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is"; or, if that doesn't suit, perhaps (2) we could examine the Democrats' stream-of-consciousness "oral defense" for Clinton's behavior, focusing on the dirty deed ("everybody does it") rather than the overt attempt to cover it up; and -- perhaps most germane of all -- (3) if it turns out that the pyrotechnic devices used at Waco were one kind of munition rather than another, is that going to change the facts?

          You see, as long as we spend time allowing ourselves to be distracted from the real issues, or diverted from the real principles, we are playing right into the hands of the FoE (Forces of Evil). And as long as we engage in endless pointless arguments about whether Delta is connected to JTF6, we're ignoring the issue of whether or not murder was committed at Mt. Carmel. I, for one, believe that there is sufficient evidence that it was. I, for one, believe that more than an "independent investigator" is needed. Wasn't Danforth a proponent of the AWB and the '94 Crime Bill? Doesn't he hate "assault weapons"? Given his close ties to law enforcement and the feral government, is he the man to investigate alleged government murder?

          So, where apologies are due, there they are. And as for the rest, I will never apologize for -- or be distracted from -- speaking for


John Taylor

Table of Contents

1. A Tale of Two Hoovers
                  by L. Neil Smith

2. Are We Really Free To Assert Our Rights?
                  by Vin Suprynowicz

3. The School-Security Scam
                  by Victor Milan

4. Now You See The Violence Inherent to the System
                  by Jonathan Taylor

5. Libertarians and Prohibition
                  by Larry Baird

6. Letters to the Editor
                  by Our Readers

7. Gimping Along With the GOP
                  by Laissez Firearm

8. The Tattered Web
                  David Roberson

9. Who Is Really The NRA?
                  by Scott Bieser

10. Dress Rehersal For Y2K
                  by Tom Creasing

Back to The Libertarian Enterprise 1999 Issues.