L. Neil Smith's
Number 262, March 7, 2004

Remember: Free Hunter!

[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 Dennis Kabaczy

Letter from Scott Graves

Letter from Nicolas Martin

Letter from Nicki Fellenzer

Letter from Dave Doctor

Response to William Stone III's article "Why Johnny Can't Get A Job"

Mr. Stone III is somewhat upset as Mr. Stone Sr. thinks that Mr. Stone III has a responsibility to provide jobs for persons that Mr. Stone III doesn't know or care about. With all due respect to Mr. Stone III, his grandfather, in a certain sense is perfectly correct.

If one considers Adam Smith's "invisible hand", then anyone who is successful, provides, in one way or another, jobs for those less endowed.

Example: During 21 years in the USAF (United States Air Force) I managed to become trained as a Physician Assistant. Since retirement from the military (and a conversion almost as dramatic as Saul on the road to Damascus) I have been converted to Libertarian principles. Many people have told me I am good at what I do. (i.e. caring for the sick) In my current position, I see most of the urgent care patients for our office, which is primarily a medical resident training facility. By my talents, and my "productivity" (as my employer refers to it) I provide employment for one X-Ray technician, and at least one Medical Assistant, and one Business Office Assistant (desk clerk). These people, all less educated than I, either through effort or economic circumstance, are dependent on me for their employment. Though I am not directly their employer, I provide them jobs. Not necessarily what Mr. Stone Sr. was directly referring to, but it works. If I don't work, the office doesn't see enough patients to support the three people mentioned.

I don't force anyone to seek employment with my employer. I don't force anyone to seek this type of job. Yet, because I am not in training, I see approximately 25% of our office's patients. If I don't work, the office loses money.

I have not asked for the responsibility of providing employment for three other people, yet I have the "responsibility" to be present at work every day.

In this manner, I am fulfilling the responsibility laid out by Mr. Stone Sr. I am providing work for some of the other 90%. I cannot be responsible for all of them. But, through Adam Smith's invisible hand, even though the government is interfering, regulating and basically making my job 10 times harder than it needs to be, I am providing work for some of them.

So both Mr. Stones are correct. We must replace government with opportunity. But in the meantime, we also must provide opportunities for others. By being productive, to the best of our abilities, even if we monkey wrench the government, we provide for others.

Dennis Kabaczy

I have only one disagreement with Neil's "Whatever happened to TV" in the last TLE. [http://www/webleyweb.com/tle/tle261-20040229-10.html]

Enterprise has gone so bad it has actively joined the other side. Season one and two are as he says, but season 3 has become "Star Trek 9/11" and makes me physicaly ill to watch.

I think the problem is the TV mentality. Whatever is successful on one show is rapidly repeated on every other show. Take for instance the "amnesia episode" so common in the televison of the 80's. Once Luke Duke got hit on the head and forgot all about his valient fight against Boss Hogg, soon Knight Rider, A-Team and all the other action shows were having their own amnesia shows.

Once the 2002 line up was filled with CIA, FBI, IRS and KGB heroes every other series thought they needed an element of that post 9/11 hysteria in their show. Unfortunately the writers and producers of Enterprise fell to that as well.

I guess for good Sci Fi we will need to return to the thrilling days of yesteryear and read.

This puts Mr. Smith on notice. We need good books, please write up a barrelful for us.

Scott Graves

Perhaps this is old news, but fresh to me.

I recently moved to Indiana and decided to search the web for tidbits about Hoosier libertarians.

I was a bit surprised to learn that Mark Rutherford, chairman of the Indiana Libertarian Party chapter, and a member of the Libertarian National Committee, is partner in a law firm dedicated almost exclusively to litigating asbestos claims.

Not only is asbestos litigation one of the most discreditable specialties of tort law, practicing it requires a sensational disdain for science and free markets. The very notion of class action is should be inimical to an individualist concept of law. Not surprisingly, the law firm's web site takes a dim view of the effort to reform (but, sadly, not abolish) class action suits. Reform, it says:

... is simply the latest attempt to protect corporations and big business by misusing federal power in order to restrict the authority of state courts. It's about disadvantaging average Americans by making special rules for powerful corporate interests. The proponents want to change the subject; but they can't hide what this debate is really about - it's about what all of these debates are about, tilting the playing field against consumers and victims.

Good old states rights in the guise of protecting the trial lawyers' meal tickets.

Never mind that class action law labels people victims whether or not they agree to be so labeled, and without regard to whether they personally suffered any injury. Class action victimsare sucked into suing people against whom they may not have any gripe, most of the time without being aware that they are party to a lawsuit. That is apparently a mere trifle to LP members, if they bother to even discover what their officials advocate.

Interesting to see that the highest ranking LP activists are comfortable with a former prosecutor whose lifes work is now litigating scientifically and morally dubious lawsuits, utilizing a collectivist element of the law, and (probably) getting wealthy while disparaging corporations and big business.

To be a Libertarian Party official and to be a libertarian are obviously very different things.

Nicolas Martin
"...it remains uncertain whether any type of asbestos acting alone can cause lung cancer in nonsmokers."—Mossman, BT and Gee, JB. (1989) Asbestos-related diseases. N Engl J Med 320:26, 1721-30.

source: [keepandbeararms.com]

Gun Owners Begin Lock Mail-In Campaign
By Nicki Fellenzer

February 29, 2004

KeepAndBearArms.com—As the U.S. Senate works to pass S.1805, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, a number of gun control amendments have been proposed by the enemies of gun rights in the Senate. One such amendment—Sen. Kohl's SA 2622—would "amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to require the provision of a child safety lock in connection with the transfer of a handgun." The amendment passed on a voice vote (70-27) on February 26.

Sen. Kohl's amendment amended an even more onerous gun lock amendment submitted by California Sen. Barbara Boxer. Boxer's amendment (SA2620) would have given the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) $2,000,000 and regulatory power over gun locks, under the guise of making them safe. CPSC is the regulatory agency that attempted to recall Daisy airguns a while back—because people had misused their products and injured children in the process. Daisy won that fight, but it was expensive. If Boxer's amendment had been left intact, CPSC's nose would have been under the proverbial tent—and in federal firearms law, for the first time.

Even Kohl's amendment is wrong-headed. Requiring people to purchase gun locks they don't need, don't want and won't use epitomizes the type of abuse of power now common in the U.S. Congress. But gun owners are targeting Boxer anyway, in part because she's among the most rabid of gun prohibitionists, and because her amendment was even more intrusive than Kohl's. Targeting Boxer? Yes...

A group of gun owners has decided to mail Sen. Boxer the spare gun locks they have on hand. Their goal is to tell the Senator that they have no intention of locking up their tools of self defense—that responsible gun owners do not appreciate Sen. Boxer's disdain for their right to choose how to ensure gun safety in their homes.

The suggestion to mail Senator Boxer gun locks ws first introduced on a pro-gun rights discussion forum by gun owner Morgan McKay. The idea has already caught on with a number of gun owners. Participating gun owners plan to begin the gun lock mail-in campaign to Senator Boxer's office on Monday.

McKay hopes to see an avalanche of gun locks deluge Senator Boxer's office in California. She believes that a large number of gun locks delivered to the gun lock aficionado would send a clear message to the Senator: "WE WILL NOT INCAPACITATE OUR TOOLS OF SELF DEFENSE!" Senator Boxer may not care. She may even ignore the flood of gun locks being sent to her office. And there's no real way to prove she ever receives the gun locks. But if as many gun owners as possible participate and spread the word far and wide, McKay believes the Senator will get the message loud and clear.

McKay hopes to get maximum participation for this protest campaign. If you have old gun locks (and new) that are lying around in your closet, being used as paperweights or bicycle locks, or are rotting in your fishing box, she hopes you'll consider sending them to Senator Boxer at the below address.

Office of Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
501 I Street, Suite 7-600
Sacramento, CA 95814

Libertarian Rock


I found your name on the MastHead of The Libertarian Enterprise. Please consider linking to Libertarian Rock. It's a site that speaks to teenagers from a Libertarian Perspective.



Dave Doctor

Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!

to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 262, March 7, 2004