L. Neil Smith's
Number 100, November 27, 2000
Without Fanfare

From: "JACK JEROME" <paratime98@yahoo.com>
To: "John Taylor" <tle@johntaylor.org>
Subject: Is there some kind of problem?
Date: Sunday, November 19, 2000 12:49 PM

Hi J.C., I am interested in some of the points of Mr. Prescott's missive in TLE #98. I seems that, however combative the tone of his letter, I agree with him. Possession of property and the retention of same confers rights, held through force. Our bodies, and that which we toil for in the form of material goods are OUR property. Past cultures have understood this and allowed for the defense of property that helps individuals to continue to survive. Shooting horse thieves and tresspassers come immediately to mind. Current trends in "public ownership", common areas and unfenced property lines have dulled these concepts appreciably.

The scope of our ability to defend our own lives is now under assault. That we may no longer legally possess the means to defend same is, for some, well on the way to being taken away. This right is not awarded to us by a piece of parchment, but by a NATURAL law. The law of survival. Darwinian law, if you prefer, survival of the fittest. Our current government has shown that it is aware of this law, by the nature of IT'S continued survival.

The "rights" we Libertarians have our "heads in our asses" about, firearm ownership, free speech, the right to assemble, fair trial and representation, are not trivial. Nor should they be trivialised. However the premise as stated, that property and self ownership brings with it responsibility of defense (with force) I agree with. Nations do it, the individuals that these nations represent should have that same latitude. Just a thought.

Peace out,


From: "Coleman Weidenbusch" <flieger@gte.net>
To: "John Taylor" <John@johntaylor.org>
Subject: Re: TLE #99
Date: Sunday, November 19, 2000 10:53 PM

> From: "critter" <stwitter@earthlink.net>
> To: <TLE@johntaylor.org> [and others]
> Subject:
> Date: Sunday, November 12, 2000 12:10 PM
> Two football teams:
> 1.. One believes a good offense wins games
> 2.. One believes a good defense wins games
> 3.. Both are given the right to have their view of, and pursue,
> their path to victory as long as they abide by NFL rules.
> Conclusion: Teams (hypothetically), not individuals decide winning
> strategies
> Fifty-two states:
> 1.. Each may have different view of ways to promote justice and
> fairness, economic policy, social policy, etc.
> 2.. All are given the right to have their view of, and pursue,
> their path to democracy as long as they abide by the
> Constitution.
> Conclusion: States, not individuals decide the best path to
> democracy and freedom.


Guess I've been asleep lo these several years like Rip VW!! Fifty-TWO states?? Would those be Puerto Rico and Samoa? Or USVI and Guam? I suppose the Democrats will want recounts there! It figures -- if they can invent two more states, they could control, or fabricate, the vote counts there, too. Made to order!!

From: "Kevin J Tull" <thejclib1@juno.com>
To: <TLE@johntaylor.org>
Subject: Presidential elections and the price of oranges in Florida.
Date: Monday, November 20, 2000 3:39 PM

Much as some people may fret over whether or not their favorite Presidential candidate is elected or not, I will be more concerned over the anticipated price hike in the cost of oranges after the government their has carried out their, kill the orchards, attack against the dreaded diseased orange groves. Well, maybe I won't be that concerned, because I don't eat that many oranges or drink the juice very often and I am a Libertarian.

Because Libertarians are against the initiation of force to achieve political goals, we feel the latest news in regard to the presidential election is not the crisis the media would lead us to believe it is. The real crisis is that either of the two major parties gets elected to office at all!

Both major parties believe the initiation of force, used by government, is OK regardless of the situation, as long as it promotes their political agendas. Sadly these experts in politics have convinced enough people that whatever change they want to achieve in society should and can be accomplished using the force of government. Guess what, you can use the force of government to achieve any political goals you want, but should you? Not if you want to retain your freedoms!

Much as society may not like what some people do or say, unless they are physically harming someone, stealing or trespassing on their property there is nothing society should do to them using government intervention. This is why the Libertarians aren't concerned with whether Bush or Gore are elected, they both will take our freedoms away by big bites or little bites it really makes no significant difference.

It is true, conservatives believe Gore may be trying to steal the election, but liberals believe Bush is trying to steal it as well. I tend to side with the conservatives on this one, but because conservatives believe that George Bush stands for lower taxes, smaller government and preserving the Second Amendment, then you can just read his daddy's hips on that one too. As much as conservatives might be in agreement with many of the Libertarian principles, faith without works is dead.

Strangely enough, those who wish to keep their weapons may be better off with Gore as president, if you consider the fact that federal firearms prosecutions went down under the Clinton/Gore administrations watch. Mr. Bush and the NRA both support increased federal prosecutions that violate our Second Amendment protections. So we may find more vigorous enforcement of unconstitutional laws under a Bush/Chaney administration.

C'mon wake up and drink your overpriced OJ. Hopefully we'll all wake up soon and start voting Libertarian.

Because Freedom Matters,
Kevin Tull
Kansas City

From: "TG" <tg@goodjudgment.net>
To: "John Taylor" <John@johntaylor.org>; <peelpee@webtv.net>
Subject: Re: TLE #99
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 1:32 PM

At 22:15 2000-11-19 -0500, Potter wrote:

> A guy in a forum online the other day wrote this jewel, "....Again,
> ....in all do respect." And this was not a simple typo, either, mind
> you. The guy writes tortured stuff like this all the time, beauts
> like, "I'm waiting with faded breath..." and references to
> "deformation of character."

Damn! And I always thought that it was "with fetid breath...." ;-D

--Terence Geoghegan

From: "Kent Van Cleave" <kvc@tima.com>
To: "John Taylor" <John@johntaylor.org>
Subject: Re: TLE #99
Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 10:59 PM

Hi, John!

I swear this is true: one of my cats stepped on my keyboard while I was away, and generated this response to your emailed issue #99. Since I had you in mind for these little items, I simply continued the process!

ITEM #1:

Below is a brief email note I've just sent to a number of Florida state senators, drawing from the links conveniently provided at [this very long URL]. Unfortunately, no comparable links are provided for members of the House.

Why am I doing this? Because there may be no better opportunity to re-establish the principle that public officials MAY NOT abuse their power without suffering personally for it. The action of the Florida Supreme Court is indefensible, period. They shouldn't have been involved. They butted in without cause. They usurped legislative powers. They conspired to violate the constitutional rights of voters under color of law.

It is time for them to be excoriated in public, impeached and tried by the Legislature, and ultimately tried on criminal charges and jailed.

And I'm happy to do my little part. Feel free to join in.... ;-)


Dear Senator:

Just an observation from an out-of-stater:

The flagrant usurpation of power by the entire Florida Supreme Court, undertaken without any complaint from an allegedly aggrieved party and with transparently partisan intent, constitutes judicial activism of the worst order -- not to mention a criminal assault on the constitutional rights of Florida voters under color of law.

Those justices -- all of them -- need to be impeached, tried, and removed from the bench. Then they need to face criminal charges and jail time.

Kent Van Cleave
Bedford, IN

ITEM #2:

This should be self-explanatory, and again I invite folks to join in.

Dear Editor:

I have good news and bad news for my esteemed countrymen in Florida.

The good news is that you good people are faced with the opportunity of the century -- an opportunity to reverse the decline in respect for the rule of law we have suffered in the U.S. for decades now (but especially since the Clintonization of America in the past several years).

By this I mean that you are in the position to extinguish the most recent and aggregious assault on the rule of law emerging from the 2000 presidential election, to wit, the wanton usurpation of legislative authority in pursuit of transparently partisan, extralegal ends that has now been perpetrated unanimously by the justices of the Florida Supreme Court. Nobody filed suit; these Democrat justices simply noted an opportunity to legislate from the bench for the purposes of hijacking a presidential election.

You Floridians now have a wonderful opportunity to begin to set things right in America. You can insist that your Legislature commence impeachment proceedings against these malefactors, that they prosecute those proceedings to their proper conclusion (unlike the Clinton debacle), and when the justices have been removed from the bench, you can then insist that the state prosecute them for their consipiracy to violate the Constitutional rights of all Americans to equal protection under the law. Their time in prison will be a wonderful tonic for restoring respect for the rule of law.

Now for the bad news. Nothing personal, but what I'm calling upon you to do is not just a possibility, or a suggestion, but a DUTY. For that reason, you need to know that I, and other Americans who believe as I do, will be expecting proper performance from you. This isn't unfair. You are responsible for the government you have allowed to develop in your state, and if you don't rein in abuse in your state government that affects the rest of us out here, we simply have to hold you accountable.

So ... don't take this as anything personal, but we expect you to motivate your legislators to render justice in this matter. If you don't, we will not be happy. We will take our vacations elsewhere, for example. My wife and I have planned a December vacation in the sun for some time now, and I have to tell you it's going to be in Hawaii. Like I said, nothing personal. And I'm sorry you haven't had time to respond to my expectations ("demands" is a bit crass). December is almost here, and we aren't coming to Florida.

We'll buy our citrus from out West, too, unless we see you prosecuting those thugs. We'll be recommending Disneyland over Disneyworld to all our acquaintances. You get the picture.

We're not asking any more than that you do your duty as American citizens, and force those whom you have elected to office to respect the rule of law.

In closing, I want to give you a bit of additional good news. Simply this: You'll feel a lot better when you've put your public servants back in their place.


Kent Van Cleave
Bedford, IN

From: <Laissezfirearm@aol.com>
To: <TLE@johntaylor.org>
Subject: Rancor? Rancor? We Don't Need No Steeenkin' Rancor!
Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:13 AM

"Yes ... tens of millions of good people in Middle America voted Republican. But if you look closely at that map [showing states won by George W. Bush in red] you see a more complex picture. You see the state where James Byrd was lynched--dragged behind a pickup truck until his body came apart--it's red. You see the state where Matthew Shepard was crucified on a split-rail fence for the crime of being gay -- it's red. You see the state where right-wing extremists blew up a federal office building and murdered scores of federal employees -- it's red. The state where an Army private who was thought to be gay was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat, and the state where neo-Nazi skinheads murdered two African Americans because of their skin color, and the state where Bob Jones University spews its anti-Catholic bigotry: they're all red too." - Paul Begala, a buddy of Gore's, on MSNBC (who apparently caught the end of that "Grapes of Wrath" flick recently)

Ooooooooh, I hear the war-drums. They are a-beatin'.


From: "Jeff Colonnesi" <jcolonne@flash.net>
To: <TLE@johntaylor.org>; <vin@lvrj.com>; ≶lneil@lneilsmith.org>
Subject: Reaching out to a new generation
Date: Friday, November 24, 2000 8:15 PM

I'm sitting here at my computer the day after Thanksgiving, while my wife performs her annual homage to the free market, listening to my 3-1/2 year old cycle through the umpteenth video tape when a nagging idea surfaced again. Why isn't there a single cartoon or movie that portrays Libertarian ideals? More especially, why isn't there one aimed at the children's market?

Now this isn't the first time I've had this idea. But I've still never been able to come up with a decent answer. I mean its not as if the material isn't out there. Just look at the stories written by L. Neil Smith and Carl Bussjaeger. Both have stories that would translate well onto video media. Granted, their stories tend to be aimed at the adult audience, but I am certain that it would be well within the talents of either to write one aimed at children. And if not either of them, I am certain there have got to be at least a few children's writers who count themselves as Libertarians.

Now I'll grant you that movies aren't cheap to produce. But they also tend to make money. Lots of it if they are done well. And with the continuing advances in computer animation, an animated film can be done with less expense than ever.

I also understand that the big studios may be "unsupportive" of our message. Again, with the advances in computers, at least when dealing with an animated film, the expense of a big name studio isn't necessary. Ditto the big name actors and actresses. Since all that is needed is a voice, we have the range of all the struggling actors and actresses to choose from.

I'm sure some are saying to themselves that the movie going public won't go to see one. Or that even if they would, the theaters wouldn't show it. Well who cares? Don't aim for that market. We have the internet as a distribution network and a lot of parents who will buy almost any video that promises to keep their kids entertained and doesn't have an objectionable message. And most parents wouldn't have a problem with Libertarian messages, especially those tuned to a child's perspective. In fact, most parents would be clamoring to have their children watch something that encouraged kids to "not initiate force".

So can anyone think of a reason why this couldn't be done? Or, more importantly, why it shouldn't be?

Jeff Colonnesi

Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 100, November 27, 2000.