L. Neil Smith's
Number 258, February 8, 2004

Government has no requirement to protect anyone

[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 Frank Ney

Letter from E.J. Totty

Letter from Scott Kohlhaas

Letter from Sergei Borglum Hoff

Re: "An Ounce of Prevention", by Lady Liberty

Concerning item 12, I disagree with your assessment that saying no to a request to search your car can be used as probable cause. As I recall, a number of Supreme Court decisions have stated precisely the opposite and I am sure the lawyers reading this can come up with a half-dozen cites without cracking a book or logging into Findlaw.

I myself managed this on a traffic stop in Virginia, where a state trooper was more interested in generating probable cause to search my van (note to travellers: Do not drive a van on I-81 while wearing a beard in daylight, you will be considered a drug courier) than he was in dealing with the kids throwing rocks off the overpass which caused the damaged windshield I was stopped for in the first place. The pig (for such he was) even claimed the computer system logged me as a "multiple convicted felon" as leverage to get me to surrender my rights. And then refused to let me see the information on his little VDT in the cruiser. No deal. My van was not searched.

So I don't think you have anything to worry about, at least until Bush (at Ashcroft's bidding) signs another executive order along the lines of the ones in Enemies Foreign and Domestic. A cop that searches without probable cause and against your wishes is going to end up making a major contribution (along with his department) to your retirement fund. That's not to say such cops don't exist — power geeks tend to gravitate towards positions where they can be official overseers complete with whip — but I'd say winning the cop lottery is worth a few hours, even days of inconvenience.

Frank Ney

Dear Mr. Ed / Editor,

A quick note to those who've forgotten:

Government has no requirement to protect anyone, except the criminal, and the accused.

For those who think that government is here to protect them, here's the facts:

"Ironic, is it not? The following cases:

  • Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A. 2d 1 DC APP. (1981)

  • Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F. 2d 616, at 618, 7th Cir (1982)

  • Weiner v. Metro. Transit Auth., 55 NY 2d 175, 448 NYS 2d 141 (1982)

  • DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dept. of Soc. Serv., 489 US 189 (1989)

all establish that a government has no duty to protect citizens from attack or assault by criminals or madmen -- even when it can be conclusively proven that the governmental agency was aware of an established pattern of violence (as in the Davis case) and the liklihood of impending violence (again, as in the Davis case) — yet, non-governmental entities do not enjoy such immunity."

The above is quoted from David Gonzalez, at: gonzalez@Mcs.Net.

In any case, not having any means at your disposal to defend yourself is really your own choice, and it relates directly to your particular mind set.

Some people have a secret death wish — their own demise. These are also the very same people who also have a desire to see others murdered, to satisfy a morbid curiosity about what will happen to them in the end.

So, they seek to disarm all others in the quest to witness this misery of other human beings — over, and over, and over again.

You see? The desire to end one's life begins with the willingness to see as many other's lives taken first.

That is the modus operandi of people who take lives, for they desire to know what it is like to die.

Call it the 'death fascination' syndrome.

They can't quite bring themselves to do the "job," so they make everyone else miserable in the interim.

It is also the modus operandi of politicians who erect every barrier to citizens protecting themselves.

What better way to read and salivate over every death caused by the laws enacted?

Others — as myself, desire to live, unmolested by any who have a willingness to take life in a rather nonchalant manner.

So, again, it is not any of us — the law abiding, who are protected by any anti-firearms law.

Rather, it is the criminals who are.

The criminals have every wherewithal at their disposal to challenge every tenet of law, while the assaulted, the raped, the molested, the damned near murdered, and the buried have absolutely NOTHING to appeal to, save 12 jurors, and a heap of common sense.

In Liberty,
E.J. Totty ejt@seanet.com

I enjoyed your website, The Libertarian Enterprise, and I thought I would ask a question:

Would you be willing to spread the word about (or link to) www.draftresistance.org?

When it comes to the draft, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

Please let us know.


Scott Kohlhaas

[You got it! — Mr. Ed]

Having no desire to belabor this subject, we have two basic categories of people who claim to identify with American patriotism. The liberty-committed-patriots are to be honored, as they will endure sacrifices if and when necessary in defense of this nation and human rights. Following with a pathetic stature are the pseudo-patriot clans, habitually displaying intense loyalty to political factions and their leaders but not to our nation and Constitution. They cannot conceive or appreciate ideologies beyond the confines of "Party" indoctrination, and are willing pawns of the elite. Their usefulness as instruments of tyranny is obvious. Such no-questions-asked loyalties were necessary for enslaving the peoples of Communist China, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany. More recently, loyal Democrats enthusiastically either denied or justified the treasonous and criminal activities of the Clinton duo. Obedient Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads are doing likewise regarding George Bush's betraying encroachments upon our liberties and nonexistent defense of constitutional principles. The disingenuous responses from both feuding clans are equally detrimental to liberty and the stability of our nation. The Republican and Democrat loyalists are destroying our nation. Their blind loyalty has gained nothing more than contempt from genuine American patriots. Other than to add that these impostors will receive a thorough thrashing from the hands of reality and wisdom after everything is lost, further comments would be pointless.

Vote your conscience; go on a quest for Third Party candidates who exemplify loyalty to the Constitution, this nation, and our children.

Sergei Borglum Hoff (Former Republican)


You've read about it, now if you want to DO more FREEDOM in your life, check out:

[Are YOU Doing Freedom?]
Doing Freedom!

This ain't no collection of essays and philosophical musings!

Doing Freedom! Magazine and Services specializes in
hard-core, hands-on, how-to information that is meant to be
more than entertaining and interesting; our goal is to be useful.

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 258, February 8, 2004