L. Neil Smith's
Number 74, May 29, 2000

Letters To The Editor

by Our Readers
Send Letters to TLE@johntaylor.org

Dear Editor:

Is this the Libertarian Enterprise or the Narrow-Minded Nationalist Enterprise? I have to wonder after reading Michael J. Bates's latest article, in which he writes, "Listen up, Elian Gonzalez is an illegal alien, he HAS no rights in the United States!" Apparently Bates thinks that the motto that begins each issue of the Libertarian Enterprise reads,

"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 -- unless the other human being is a dirty foreigner."

Kevin S. Van Horn <ksvhsoft@xmission.com>

Dear Editor,
(Note: Somehow 'Dear Editor' sounds better than 'Dear John')

It occurs to me that, after reading and viewing every morsel of what passes for news these days, that there is a blatant level of willful ignorance on the part of that mass media.

Consider: That statistical data are most severely misrepresented, misquoted, or worse - completely ignored, when such information would inconveniently discredit or thoroughly disable a held contention, cannot be anything but purposely intentional. The resort to blatant lies cannot be by mistake, or even haphazard reporting. To tell a lie as an excuse to presage a better thing, is the same as killing a person to save them from themselves. Neither of which is valid, unless you are making the rules as you go.

If one were to evaluate the objectivity (or what passes for that), the inescapable conclusion would be that it is intentionally avoided in order to appeal to the superficial, less articulate, and shallow minded citizens, who question little, and accept on face value every utterance from the talking heads in video land.

The attempt to gloss over serious issues with 'feel good', 'sound good', 'quick fix' solutions, has not only compounded the problems, it has created a virtual market place for the preposterous and thoroughly outlandish political themes that currently run rampant everywhere within our government.

These crackpot themes have exacerbated the difficulties, caused by previous unworkable and ill considered propositions, accompanied with hype in the media, often resulting in extreme legal opinions and an ever tightening noose around every right under attack.

Case in point: The so-called "Million Mom March", which was not a million, probably had not very many 'moms', and from what was aired and propagated in the press, was not even a 'march', unless milling around stupidly like zombies is the new definition for 'marching.' At least the AIM/SAS had the temerity to take the battle to the enemy by actually marching to them.

The essence of the MMM was about force: demanding a certain polity be enforced upon the rest of the nation, not unlike the essence of the polity forced upon the Cuban peoples, by one man and his henchmen. If Cuba under Castro is so good, why is it necessary to employ the force of the state to ensure that the misamic stasis of socialism never varies? If one man's polity is so good, was does he never allow a serious challenge to his suppositions, by allowing the people to vote with their feet?

We know the answer to that.

And, we know the answer to the drivel expounded upon by the White House leaders who organized the MMM. For the last seven years, the President of the US, has used every ploy, stratagem, ulterior motive, underhanded, conniving and deceitful trick in an attempt to convince the American people to surrender one of their rights: The right to keep and bear arms.

It isn't working.

The answer is force.

When you cannot achieve a goal through legal means, no matter how underhanded and crooked your methods, then the only two paths left are surrender, or the employment of force. If the MMM was meant to be a quasi display of public opinion, and if the mass media had marched in lockstep with the administration, then the only thing left was to create an artificial situation that demanded immediate action - a sort of Reichstag bombing.

But, as we've seen, the whole effort was a poor excuse for shut-ins to get out and socialize. What really put the kibosh to the MMM was not only the D.C. gathering of the AIM/SAS, but the national events as well. When your lie is so well discovered, so easily exposed, and so vociferously challenged by massive call-ins to TV stations that chose to ignore gatherings of the AIM/SAS, and review only the MMM, then the jig is up. The word did indeed get around that the MMM was a serious flop.

The only thing left is to manufacture an artificial incident whereby the President declares martial law, and FEMA declares all personal arms to be contraband. That would be a supremely stupid move, for it would ultimately produce a cascading failure of the economy and every other aspect of our national infrastructures. The results and implications would be felt world-wide.

Bill Clinton has an immediate problem, and that is that no cop outside the New England states is crazy enough to even consider confiscation - not even in California. It may have worked in New York City a long time ago, but as the liberals are fond of saying, "That was then, this is now!" And no National Guardsman with half a brain, is going to obey any such order to conduct house-to-house searches for firearms. Fading into the woodwork will fast become an epidemic of the ranks.

If the local law enforcement agencies do attempt to enforce the edict, that is when the total breakdown of the law will happen. When the people can no longer trust the uniformed officers of the law to disregard unlawful orders, and refuse to obey them, and instead act as automatons for the state, then there will be no valid reasons for obeying any law.

Perhaps that is what Bill Clinton really wants, to destroy this nation - as Adolph Hitler ordered the destruction of Paris - to ruin the last great chance for humanity to know the essence of liberty. Supremely sour grapes: If he can't have it, then neither shall we.

My thoughts are that we will survive the Clinton assault, and move on to bigger and better things, but not before another insult to our senses, and the loss of life in the process, facilitated no less, by the fourth estate - in the name of the 'mass media.'

E.J.Totty <echeghlon@seanet.com>
Everett, Washington

I've spent the last couple of days trying to figure out this phenomenon of an article by Harry Browne, of all people, appearing in The Libertarian Enterprise.

Given all the powerful (and justifiable) criticism that Neil has fired Harry's way, it's kinda surprising to see Harry as a featured contributor to this e-zine. Complete with link to his Presidential campaign website!

I have the following theories:

1) While Neil was sidetracked with his brother's health crisis and his own asthma and computer problems, John thought it would be funny to slip this Browne article in as a practical joke.

2) While Neil was sidetracked with his brother's health crisis and his own asthma and computer problems, John spotted the Browne article, and thought it would be a good thing to include because he didn't know how much Neil detests Harry. (If you forget about who wrote that essay, it's not bad.)

3) Neil and John want to demonstrate that TLE is a big tent and anyone who claims to be a Libertarian is welcome to contribute.

4) Neil has come to some kind of reconciliation with Harry but hasn't told the rest of us about it yet.

5) Neil wants Harry to think some kind of reconciliation is in the offing, as part of some crafty scheme that will end up with Harry getting booted out of the LP and Neil being nominated for President. (This is my favorite theory.)

Am I close on any of these?

Scott [Bieser] <sbieser@interplay.com>

[No, Scott. -ed.]

US Code: Title 18, Section 241. "Conspiracy against rights" states in part:

"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege, (the right I am refering to here in this email is the right of the people to keep and bear arms wihtout infringement), secured to him by the constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; .... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; ...."

If your organization was wise ... you would know what to do with this law ... if the other side can bring idiotic, illegal, and frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers for the careless or criminal acts of the users of thier products then you should be able to go after them with this law!

Aas <aas@cfweb.net>

Back to the top

Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 74, May 29, 2000.