L. Neil Smith's
Number 201, December 2, 2002


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500 words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear.]

Letter from Carl Bussjaeger

Letter from Jack Jerome

Letter from Ed Williams

Letter from Robert Bass

Letter from MacGregor K. Phillips

Letter from Mike Pare

Another Letter from Jack Jerome


Hi John,


I hadn't been tracking that... 200 issues. Congratulations! I'm not sure right now how many issues included articles by myself, but I'm pleased to be in there at all.

And the idea dated back (at least) to '92, with the first issue published in '95 ...

I didn't even meet Neil 'til '99, (And I still haven't met enough of you in the real world.) through the good offices of Lobo and Sunni.

There may be hope for freedom yet. Keep up the great work!

Carl Bussjaeger [bussjaeger@free-market.net]

Hi J.C.,

Have you heard the one about the Republican that walked into the White House and figured he had more in common with his political enemies than he thought? Of course you have. I've been raving about redlight cameras, monitoring cameras at intersections, and electronic eavesdropping for years in TLE, and now it's legal.

Congress has now cowardly given up it's Constitutional right to declare war, sold rights to privacy, search and seizure, the right to bear arms, and private property rights down the loo too. Next on the agenda, the money trail that checks follow through the Federal Reserve Bank is about to be obviated. Why should we care?

I don't claim to be an expert in anything (except what to shoot with, and what to shoot at), but would USgov easily relinquish control over chequing without ulterior motive? Always suspect something if government does something for your own good. Transactions through the Federal reserve are nominally privacy protected, access limited to Treasury scrutiny if over $5000.00. This would change if the Fed is cut out of the loop. In fact, I may state first that this may bea process which the end result may be the end of check issuing, totally. All in the interest of speeding transactions up in the private banking world.

They never seemed to want to speed up before. Remember the old "3 days to clear" rule our paychecks used to follow since time immemorial up to the late 90's? Crikey, you can't find more than 2 tellers in any given bank branch here in the D.C. suburbs. It's a quality visit to personally make a deposit nowadays.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers, but I really can't see the Government making life simpler for us, just for USgov.

Congrats on the 200th Ish of TLE, glad I could contribute a little now and then.

Peace out,

Jack Jerome [paratime98@yahoo.com]


Hi Bill,

From your letter, one can see that you're at least reasonably intelligent, and well spoken. I suggest that you consider writing an (or some) eBook(s) containing some of the insights and useful information that you've gained as the result of your experiences, in order to help others not need to re-invent the wheel in their dealings with similar problems. This course of action has strong potential to earn you some (maybe a big pile) of money, and thereby allow you to gain the upper hand in your circumstances. Problems and opportunities are two sides of the same coin. I hope you will take this in the spirit it is offered, and I wish you the best.

Ed Williams [chimneys@quik.com]

RE: TLE 200

"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." -- LNS

This has been a poor definition from Day One. I've written about it before, but it has remained on the masthead.

Start with the obvious. The definition says that no one has the right to advocate the initiation of force. Well, if I don't have the right to advocate initiating force, then it would not be a violation of my rights to forcibly stop me from advocating it. But since advocating is not the same as initiating, the person who forcibly stopped me from advocating initiated force would himself be initiating force.

Move to the slightly less obvious. Is a proscription on initiated force enough? There's a long tradition of stating the libertarian position as opposing initiated force and fraud. And neither of the obvious ways of leaving out a proscription on fraud -- saying that it's 'really' force or that it's not really a violation of rights -- is very comfortable.

On another front, is it even true that no one ever has the right to initiate force? For example, is it a violation of rights to forcibly carry a small child to the doctor? There seems no room for weaseling in the definition: "no ... right, under any circumstances".

These are just the beginning. More problems come from the fact that there are actually two different definitions of "libertarian" given. The first sentence defines it in terms of belief, while the second and third define it in terms of action. Plainly, that leaves room for a person to qualify as a libertarian by virtue of his beliefs but also to be disqualified by virtue of his actions. By the terms of the masthead definition, a person can be and fail to be a libertarian at the same time.

The whole 'definition', such as it is, may be good rhetoric. If that's what it was intended for, fine. But as a serious definition, meant to separate the libertarian sheep from the non-libertarian goats, it is about as thoroughly confused as any three sentences could be.

Robert Bass [amosapient@yahoo.com]


Here is another e-gold scam e-mail I just received. The real url under the link in the e-mail is [very long, reduced to fit:] http://www.e-gold-team.com/acct/login.html?session=XzGTRkiaEDF823KFzzeM&email=support@topsecretcrypto.com. This is not even a secure url. The previous e-mail scam was much better done.

MacGregor K. Phillips [admin@topsecretcrypto.com]
TAN$TAAFL Software Company

----- Original Message -----
From: E-Gold Support Team.
To: TAN$TAAFL Software Company@e-gold.com ; account ######
Sent: 30. November 2002 12:44 AM
Subject: E-Gold Pending Reversed Transaction!

TAN$TAAFL Software Company, account ######.

It has come to our attention that you may be the recipient of potentially fraudulent funds. We have initiated an investigation into this event. In the meantime, we have placed a pending reversal on the funds in question until the investigation is complete. This pending reversal will show as a deduction in your available balance. In the meantime, you are free to continue transacting using your E-Gold account.

To check the transaction in question please go to: https://www.e-gold.com/acct/login.html and log in into your e-gold account.

Transaction Date: Oct 14, 2002 07:39:34
Transaction Amount: $680.00
Payor's E-Gold: 364529

E-Gold Support Team.

Thank you for using e-gold!

This automatic email sent to: support@topsecretcrypto.com
Do not reply to this email.

Recently released from N.A.S.A. -- or maybe "escaped" might be a better description: [LINK]

Mike Pare [mpare@telus.net]

A DELAYED ANSWER TO A CHALLENGE I ISSUED IN NOV, 2000 http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe97-20001106-01.html#letter5

Jenny actually researched all Bewitched episodes and found 50 or so out of 225 that had no alcohol consumption in them.

Amazing ... I'm speechless.

Jack Jerome [paratime98@yahoo.com]

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 201, December 2, 2002