L. Neil Smith's
Number 121, May 14, 2001

From: "Shugarts, Keith" <Keith.Shugarts@B2EMarkets.com>
To: TLE@johntaylor.org
Subject: King William, the Gun, and Compassion Fascism
Date: Monday, April 30, 2001 10:50 AM

Dear Libertarian Enterprise,

I wrote this nearly a year ago but still think that it as relevant today as it was then.

I truly believe that what we are witnessing today with regards to our involvement in the Balkans and the reaction to the killings in Colorado is the rise of the Compassion-Fascists.

The Compassion-Fascist (CF) ideology overrides any other political ideology that the CF may profess to belief in. CF has its roots in emotion and doing the "right" thing. They claim to have supernatural "enlightenment" on issues to which they speak and have to use any measure necessary to "enlighten" others. Coercion through emotion. King William, with the Ice Queen in back nodding enthusiastically like a spring necked dog in the back of King William's astroturf covered El Camino, last night in a posed propaganda event, showed the fiery emotion that propels CFs into their euphoric and zealotic state - like an evangelical preacher Pope William, the Holy Bubba, stirred up the crowd with angry rhetorical and emotional string pulling against the Demon Gun. Pope William, the Holy Bubba, proudly taunted the evil gun with clenched fist and red face. To paraphrase the Holy Bubba, It will be tough to give up your guns but you must because it is for the greater good and it will protect the children. Run it through the Patented CF Filter and it comes out something like this, it won't be easy to give up your freedoms, but you have to do it because it will make you feel good and if you don't do it then we will make you because after all, this is a democracy where we can tell you to do whatever we want.

Now Compassion-Fascist Editors, like the one writing in the Opinion Section of the Washington Post, are calling for the banning of handguns - of course hunters would be exempt because they are the good gun owners and that is really all guns should be used for anyways the editor reasons because the government is run by benevolent people who only want what is best for you even if you don't know it yet. Forget about the Constitution the Compassion Fascists scream with their pens that are mightier than a sword thrust up high in the air. The Founding Fathers were obviously not "enlightened" enough to understand that guns are evil, as they were equally short sighted about tobacco and a persons right to carry on their own affairs. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness they huff and puff (huffing and puffing only air because as we know, huffing and puffing anything else would be harmful and possibly illegal) are outmoded concepts that must be subservient to the new "enlightenment" of goodness and right doing. Helmets for all bicycle riders, seatbelts, trigger locks, not being able to order a medium rare hamburger in a restaurant, mandatory life jackets for god sake they rant, rave, and sob - their eyes moist with emotion and the light of "enlightenment" the purity of their convictions locked deep within their oh so large heart - someone might actually get hurt people must be protected from themselves. "What? We only want to protect you from yourself" They bellow when said that those are good suggestions but they should not be law. "Do not worry about taking care of yourself," they coo, "we will take care of you." Thought is an anathema to a Compassion-Fascist because thought cannot be controlled, thought is chaotic and unpredictable. A Compassion-Fascist cannot be sure if you are thinking a correct thought or not, or even worse, will perform a correct action if allowed to act on your own. Therefore, ultimately not only action must be controlled, but thought as well. Teach children in school not about reason for reasoning leads to independent thought instead make the children good citizens, dress them in uniforms so they cannot exhibit individual characteristics, teach them how individuality is bad and cooperation is good.

The Compassion-Fascist feeds on the raw emotion of Columbine like a rabid wolf on a wounded deer. They wrap their arms around the wounded and whisper coercive songs softly in the wounded's ears. Singing they will protect them and not let them hurt anymore for they have the answers, they are enlightened and their goodness is pure, their cause right if only those people will give over their freedoms to them. Just give over your rights, your liberties, your freedom and we will make sure that you never hurt again, that is their song but they cloak it in emotion and good think, good action. Like the Sirens who sing on rocky shores luring wayward sailors to their doom, the Compassion-Fascists sing a compassionate song to those hurting or afraid, only to lure them the to rocks of tyranny and the wreckage of oppression.

Yours in Liberty,

Keith Shugarts

From: "James J Odle" <jjodle@earthlink.net>
To: "John Taylor" <TLE@johntaylor.org>
Subject: Drug War Sidebar
Date: Saturday, May 05, 2001 2:24 AM

Why exactly do people continue to embrace the war on Drugs when it so obviously a failure and that it harms those it purports to help? Conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy practically have heart seizures at the thought of drug legalization. Basically the argument goes something like this:

Drug use is immoral

But these people have no moral or constitutional difficulty with seeing their fellow innocent citizens gunned down in ill-conceived drug raids or undergoing strip and body cavity searches at border crossings. And they apparently approve of seeing billions of dollars leave this country and going to South American drug cartels rather than being spent here and creating jobs here. They also smile warmly, apparently, at the thought of seeing law enforcement personnel risk their lives for unachievable goals and new prisons opening up every week along with the resulting increase in taxation that this requires. Also, seeing law enforcement personnel prey upon the American people in an on-going search for new sources of revenue makes them downright giddy with approval. Apparently overwhelming political corruption and inner-city violence as well as the undermining of foreign governments is simply a splendid idea. On KOA's libertarian Rick Barber show, it was recently announced that a federal judge has determined that the entire Los Angeles police department could be sued under the RICCO statutes as an corrupt, on-going criminal enterprise. I haven't heard this getting any airtime on conservative talk-radio.

Since the Supreme Court has effectively decided that the Bill of Rights is null and void whenever drugs are the issue, apparently this causes not the slightest twinge of conscience among archconservatives who, supposedly, have complete and total understanding and respect of and for the Constitution. This is especially amazing when you consider the Limbaugh comes from a family of lawyers and Liddy is a former lawyer and prosecutor himself.

Don't they understand that it is costing them their 1rst, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights and that the rights that they lose, their family, friends and descendents lose also?

Society has the right to set 'the standards'

This is a variation of 'drug use is immoral' and deserves the same response.

Sending a message

Drug warriors like to proclaim that drug legalization would 'send the message' that drug use is acceptable and condoned. This is a variation on the first two rationales already mentioned. It is particularly insipid in that anyone over the age of ten knows that drug use is potentially harmful and that it really is not a good idea.

When you consider that the public airwaves are filled with ads from the partnership for a Drug-free America the presence of D.A.R.E in the public schools then it can only be concluded that the message has been sent, received and understood and that drug users simply don't care.

Besides, people entertain conflicting ideas all the time. Every teenager knows that alcohol is forbidden to him until he reaches the age of majority. The conflicting ideas don't cause the slightest cerebral conflict in anyone.

[Also see L. Neil Smith's article below. -- ed.]

From: "William Stone, III" <wrstone@wrstone.com>
To: tle@johntaylor.org
Subject: The Commie Rat Anti-Free Software Act of 2001
Date: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:17 AM


I ran across another one of those great articles about government intervention in the high-tech world that I find so funny. The URL to the article is:

In case you're unaware of it, last week Microsoft stepped up its anti-Linux FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) campaign. Linux is sometimes criticized for being rather unlike other computer products because of its approach to "intellectual property." I would point out that Eric S. Raymond -- the leading figure in what's known as the "Open-Source Movement" -- is an unabashed libertarian and gun owner. I'm looking forward to meeting him at one of his "Geeks With Guns" bashes that he puts on whenever he finds enough of us in one place. Or, as Raymond himself says:

"Geeks and guns are a natural match. Open-source software is about getting freedom; personal firearms are about keeping it. Besides that, hackers gotta love anything where you get to tinker with complex hardware that makes loud exploding noises."

Eric Raymond's home page (and libertarian writings) can be found at http://tuxedo.org/~esr/

Some particularly amusing text from the Linux Today article reads as follows:

- - -

Dear [my elected official],

I used to have my doubts about Microsoft, but recently I realized that even though they have tens of billions of dollars in the bank, and they brag about how competitive they are -- they're actually weak panty-waists who need the helping hand of your legislative action. Please pass a law to put Richard Stallman and Eric Raymond in jail -- maybe even those commie rat-fink mud-sucking pond scum idiot programmers that follow them too.

I also think a black-list of names should be collected. People should have to register on the list if they want to work with Free Software, or be placed there by a colleague who maybe recently saw them purchase a PC without Microsoft products pre-installed. Maybe we can put them on it if they've ever been seen buying a CD product with the word "Linux" on it, too.

Restore my faith in the American-Microsoft-serving way and lend your support to the proposed bill "The Commie Rat Anti-Free Software Act of 2001."

In closing I'd like to remind you that regardless of all the times I've been infected with viruses, rebooted and re-installed the operating system on my computer, I haven't been harmed one iota by Microsoft's monopoly. I love paying for Windows products -- it doesn't bother me a bit that I don't have a choice, and that the price keeps going up. I realize it's my contribution to the American dream -- Microsoft style.


[your name here]

- - -

Bill Stone

From: "Curt Howland" <howland@priss.com>
To: tle@johntaylor.org
Subject: another brick in the wall...
Date: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 7:44 PM


The [California Supreme] court, in its 28-page opinion, also warned that nullification would leave the fate of defendants to the "whims of a particular jury" which could disregard the presumption of innocence or even convict "by the flip of a coin."

[See also below both the article by Vin and "LIBBITS" for more on this topic. -- ed.]

From: "David Lewis" <David@LewisIT.com>
To: TLE@johntaylor.org
Subject: The Death of a 1,000 Year Old Bastion of Liberty
Date: Thursday, May 10, 2001 2:53 PM

The Death of a 1,000 Year Old Bastion of Liberty
David Lewis

The California Supremely Arrogant Court has upheld a lower judge's removal of a juror who "refused to follow the instructions of the judge" and would not convict a defendant for violation of a law the juror found unconscionable. To see the story click here: http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/bayarea/stories/nullification_20010508.htm

[reproduced below in LIBBITS -- ed.]

If this ruling is not taken to the US Supremes and defeated there then our already dying jury system - for a thousand years the final peaceful defense against tyranny - is flatline.

The conscience of the jury is all we have left folks. It's the final veto power of the people over unjust acts of tyrants. Black robed elites and the oath breaking "representatives" have tried to destroy it many times throughout the last thousand years. It has remained strong because of brave men and women like the 1670 jurors who went to prison rather than convict William Penn of practicing a forbidden religion. It has been used again and again in this country to defend the oppressed against tyrannical legislators. Laws against speaking ill of the government, harboring runaway slaves, drinking or making prohibited alcohol have all been made null by courageous jurors. It became so impossible to convict violators of the fugitive slave laws that prosecutors in the free border states eventually gave up even trying.

Now it looks as if the one real power the people still retain over a legislature abusing it's authority will die a quiet death. For many decades in the liberty-loving United States of America the legislatures of the varied states have strained against the people's veto power, enacting legislation that curtailed jury authority or hamstrung those jurors who would refuse to violate their conscience. Judges who were once empowered only to ensure that order was kept in the courtroom have become an elite cadre whose authority has begun to transcend that of the people. They are now the ones who have primary authority in the conviction or acquittal of the accused. They have usurped the right to decide the justice of the law in cases tried in their courts. They now begin to usurp the right to decide the facts as well. Cries of, "Our jury system is outdated!" and "We need PROFESSIONAL jurors, not CITIZEN jurors!" have been encouraged by the black robed elite and our "representative" legislators both of whom seek increase to their personal power. Both of whom chaff at the chains placed upon them by the ones they serve - the people. All of these things have led to an almost complete degradation of justice in the right to trial by jury.

The thousand year old acknowledgment that every man woman and child accused of violating an edict of the state has the right to have their guilt or innocence decided not by their accuser the state but by the state's master, 12 RANDOMLY SELECTED people from the community, has gone through much suffering in the last hundred years. A concept known as "Voir Dire" has risen it's ugly head and embedded itself in our right of jury. Sounding reasonable, as all acts of tyranny always initially do, it was intended to ensure that no one on the jury was a close relative of the accused. Unfortunately the camel's nose got under the tent and now this French innovation is used to screen out anyone who might disagree with the elite judge - that is, anyone who has a conscience and the courage to act on it.

But Voir Dire was and is not foolproof - occasionally a courageous individual would slip through the cracks of tyranny and find himself impaneled on a jury in a case where the law was unjust. This man or woman of conscience can not "obey" the instructions of the judge but rather finds himself obligated to acquit a violator of a legislature's act of tyranny.

So now the direct assault begins. Now we have a state Supreme Court that dares, as the 1670 judge did, to bring it's crushing boot down upon the neck of our already nearly dead right.

Who will defend the defenders of liberty? Who will speak out against these thieves of liberty? No, these murderers of liberty. What will be done to bring down a few individuals who dare say that they are above the reach of the people? What can be done?

As noted earlier, the jury box is the last peaceful defense a free people have against the tyrants who rule them. When the tyrants have destroyed that defense what is left? No peaceful avenues remain to fight creeping tyranny. The tyrants may find that in taking away all peaceful means the people have of opposing tyranny they have forced the people into the only course left - the one embodied not by the Sixth and Seventh Amendments but by the Second. May God save us from that road.

From: "Thomas L. Knapp" <tlknapp@free-market.net>
Subject: The Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith Rides Again
Date: Sunday, May 06, 2001 6:42 PM

Dear Fellow Libertarians:

I'm reading -- for the second time, to make sure I didn't miss any of the good stuff -- the next LP presidential candidate's campaign book. Or one of them anyway. It's called Lever Action.

That candidate was also the last LP presidential candidate, in Arizona at any rate.

I wrote to L. Neil Smith earlier today to make sure that his offer -- that he'll run for president if those who want him to show up at his door with either the LP presidential nomination or 1 million signatures asking him to run as an independent -- is still valid.

It is.

And we will.

This time, some things are going to be done differently.

As last time, I'm appointing myself acting de facto HMFIC of the Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith.

This time, I'm also appointing myself treasurer. There's a reason for that, which I'll get to shortly.

The first difference is that we're starting earlier this time.

The second difference is that we have a non-fiction book that is well-suited to promoting a Libertarian candidate, the Libertarian Party and the libertarian idea. That's above and beyond Smith's more than 20 novels, not to mention the two novels slated for release this year.

The third difference is that we're going to raise money, and spend money.

The fourth difference should explain why I am the treasurer:

Awhile back, a friend and I were talking about organizations and their problems, and he mentioned something that caught my interest. It seems that when an organization is set up for political purposes, the treasurer is the one left holding the legal bag for FEC reporting and such. Not the candidate. Not the campaign manager. The treasurer.

So when I, treasurer of the Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith, send the FEC notice that they can go piss up a rope, it's all on me.

The Ad Hoc Conspiracy is going to raise money. The purpose of said fundraising will be to promote L. Neil Smith as a presidential candidate -- by getting copies of Lever Action into libraries, among other things.

I suspect the guy whose friends are trying to talk him into running will be willing, once again, to do talk radio and otherwise promote his ideas, if not a candidacy he isn't seeking.

The Federal Election Commission will NOT receive reports from the Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith. They won't be told who contributed or how much they contributed. They won't be told ANYTHING -- correction: they will be told, at the very outset and every time they squeal thereafter, that they aren't getting the information they demand. Period.

No guarantees, but the Ad Hoc Conspiracy will also do its best to make sure that we don't even *know* who gave, or how much they gave. The only records we'll keep are how much money came in and where it went ... and those will be kept encrypted to the maximum extent possible. If the treasurer -- that's me -- has to visit the graybar motel, he'll do his level best not only to not tell, but to not be ABLE to tell, even if they pull out his fingernails and make him watch Barbra Streisand concert footage.

This should address the perceived need for a "challenge" to the FEC -- without requiring free use of the LP mailing list, platoons of lawyers to file briefs and dispute standing, or the active cooperation of the LNC or use of LP funds. This is an intentional act of civil disobedience. Why should we go to them? Make THEM come to US.

The treasurer won't be taking a salary from the campaign. There won't be any paid staff. The prospective candidate or his designee, as well as perhaps some interested LP activists or officials, will have as much access to the financial figures as possible so that they can ensure there isn't any hanky panky. That can all be worked out. The treasurer may set up a *separate* account to which people can donate to help cover his expenses and legal defense costs if necessary, but not one dime intended for campaign use will go into his pocket.

The Ad Hoc Conspiracy, acting through its treasurer -- that would be me -- has already secured the smith2004.org domain name. Right now, all you will find there is an "under construction" banner (actually, you probably won't find even that -- it takes a few days for a new domain name to propagate).

[The web site is populated as of this writing. -- ed.]

Over the next week or so, the campaign web site will take shape, with the attendant event calendars, online donation utilities, candidate information and so forth. In the slightly longer term, the endorsement scripts will allow for signature collection. There will also be bulletin boards and/or discussion lists, etc.

Lever Action can be ordered online from Mountain Media at:


Material on the effort to draft Smith in 2000 is available at:


Smith's home page is at:


Yours in liberty,
Tom Knapp
Acting de facto HMFIC and Treasurer
Ad Hoc Conspiracy to Draft L. Neil Smith

Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 121, May 14, 2001.