L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 123, May 28, 2001
From: "Bama Brian" <email@example.com>
Here's something that Libertarians should really check out.
Gail H. Hoffman, founder of the Hoffman group, former Janet Reno staffer, and a key supporter of HCI/CPHV, shows Saf-T-Hammer as one of her clients. Note that Ms. Hoffman credits herself with passage of the Brady Bill, and shows a tribute to Sarah and Jim Brady on her site's home page.
Go see: http://www.hoffmangroup.com/
And then go see the clients' list at: http://www.hoffmangroup.com/clients.htm
There's another problem here as well. How could Saf-T-Hammer, a five person company, have the assets to buy out S&W? I used to work in finance and marketing, and I cannot see how the combined companies of Saf-T-Hammer and S&W will generate enough sales to pay off Tomkins PLC on the agreed schedules. My estimate, depending on S&W's margins, is that S&W must generate between $40 million and $73 million in sales the first year - just to break even! I note that there is an undisclosed investor referred to in Saf-T-Hammer's public statement, but more disclosures are a month or more in the future.
My take on the whole deal is that Saf-T-Hammer just bought themselves a way to sell firearms to LEO's and the military, and will never resume sales to consumers.
Something really stinks with this deal.
From: "Shugarts, Keith" <Keith.Shugarts@B2EMarkets.com>
Dear Libertarian Enterprise;
Our good King George III wishes to place in space and upon our soil a series of contraptions that while protect the sacred soil of the United States and those countries that cravenly seek shelter under the benevolent umbrella of this missile defense shield. Whilst this may mean profit for those companies that have applied themselves liberally with sealant and mortar to the teat of the government behemoth, it could mean a dark day for the eventual commercialization of space. This billion dollar umbrella would allow the United States government unilateral control over nearly any launch from the surface of the planet and effectively give it a choke point and hegemony over near space that could allow the United States government to expand control to future inter and extra-stellar commerce much like the British had when the have naval bases in Hong Kong, Singapore, the Caribbean, and Gibraltar. These bases allowed British naval power to influence the local commerce and put any trader or merchant within the scope, and influence of British power and control.
So why do I take the leap from umbrella to choke point?
I ask you indulgence for a moment. Transport yourself some years from now when an audacious entrepreneur is able to acquire from the former Soviet the rights to launch a vehicle into space to begin mining the asteroid belt that exists a "short" distance from earth and is possessed of what could be imaginably a very rich supply of very pure alloys (not to mention Carbonaceous Chondrite) and Emerson Ngu. We have seen how NASA reacted to the selling of a seat by the Russians to a "space tourist", just imagine the uproar that will come about when a private individual wishes to launch a privately owned space vehicle into space. The apoplexy experience by the governments of the world would send ripples throughout the international community like Rush Limbaugh doing a cannonball into a pool of Jell-O. The UN would claim that space cannot be bought and sold but owned by all and therefore demand that the entrepreneur stop this foolish endeavor. Or imagine if you will, an entrepreneur wanted to set up a "resort" on the Moon or Mars. The United States would then used the threat of shooting down this maverick's rocket before he would be able to liftoff to stop the "exploitation" of space - atleast the "exploitation" of space by individuals instead of governments and kings.
If the United States government is able to control space commerce through the dictates and whims accorded it by the creation of this benevolent umbrella would it not be out of the realm of possibility to consider that a tariff or "space tax" might be placed on those wishing to do business outside of the protective confines of mother Earth. That a space-borne alphabet soup of agencies would spring up and require that all space traffic have to stop and be inspected before entering Earth's atmosphere and liable to have to meet certain regulations and standards applied by such agencies. Regulatory agencies would then, financed by these tariffs and taxes, be able to themselves travel to the asteriod to make sure that those operating are doing so within the regulations that these agencies have imposed and enforced.
The missile defense system allows more the just the confiscation of more of our tax money, by allowing the United States government to begin gaining hegemony over near space and provides the government with the ability in the future to choke off or control interstellar commerce. Will there be a Cosmos Liberum, or Cosmos Ordinatio?
Yours in Liberty,
P.S. If you are thinking that this would make a good story you are correct - an I am writing it.
From: "Rudy Rummel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You might not have visited lately, if ever, the web site on democide (murder by government, such as genocide), war, and other forms of collective violence, and be aware of changes in the site. First, the University of Hawaii has changed its address from that for faculty:
To the permanent university address:
Second, to the over 900 documents--books, articles, data, analyses, tables, and figures--on the site, I have added several new documents or types of documents. One is my book on Saving Lives, Enriching Life. It deals with the relationship of freedom to democide, war, revolution, famine, and human development, and has an extensive appendix providing a statistical proof of this relationship.
There also is a new and extensive collection of annotated photographs of democide beginning at:
Moreover, I have made a new attempt to get visitors to intellectually and emotionally grasp the incredible amount of democide in the 20th Century--174,000,000--by visualizing it through ten experimental graphics at:
As before, the web site's scientific and scholarly conclusion remains the same-to promote peace and nonviolence, foster democratic freedom.
This e-mail message is part of an extensive effort to get the material on the web site better known and used. After all, it does show that to the best of our scientific and scholarly knowledge, we do have a solution to the world's great killers: war, democide, and famine. If, therefore, you find the site credible, useful and important, please link your site to it, if you have one and have not already done so, but in any case please pass this message on. Or just e-mail me the addresses to do so.
From: "Michael Kerner" <email@example.com>
The last episode of ER had a man who shot several people around town. It turns out that he is the same guy who had his kid snatched from him in the previous episode for suspected child abuse who was looking for his child and shooting anyone in his way.
Now, when I saw the earlier episode, I did not know that they were going to follow up with the story. They have snatched kids before without repercussions. I thought about how I might have reacted in that situation and I went through the possibilities. I certainly would have screamed "kidnapping" and threatened everyone involved with prison for kidnapping, but I would not have taken on the muscle because I would not have been armed-being that Chicago, like most big cities does not permit concealed carry.
I am going through the case in my head to decide if I would have been justified to use force on the spot to prevent the kidnapping. I probably would have died trying, taking some of the muscle guys with me. Maybe that has to happen a few times to prevent recurrences. The dumb muscle has to realize that you cannot just say that you are doing your job. The Nureumberg defense is not valid.
We certainly cannot expect the current corrupt legal system to do the right thing and punish the government wrong doers. Are the murderers of Waco and Ruby Ridge in jail? I don't know the answer to this one.
Now, with the kid gone and hidden everyone would say that I should go to court to get justice. Firstly, I am outclassed by the legal talent that the kidnappers have at their disposal, paid for with my taxes. I need to hire help with what is left. Secondly, my kid is in great danger in foster care where real abuse is rampant. I also know that the system is stacked against me because there is no black line definition of abuse.
Thirdly, I am out of my mind with grief. My only kid has been forcibly taken from me. I doubt that I would be thinking really rationally at the time.
I don't want to say that he was justified in the shooting spree, especially since it was counterproductive and, in this story, was not solely directed to responsible people. Might he have been justified in using force directly to free his kid from wherever he was being held? Or must he have gone through all the legal traps first with all the time and resources that would be consumed?