L. Neil Smith's
Number 269, May 2, 2004

Morons Marching

[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 Roy J. Tellason

Another Letter from Roy J. Tellason

Letter from Rocky Frisco

Letter from Letter from Manuel Miles, aka Kapt Kanada

Letter from Letter from Frank Ney

Letter from Letter from James J Odle

Letter from Another Letter from James J Odle

Re: Letter from Seth Cohn

> Can anyone point me to an existing Libertarian 'keep the state out of
> my marriage' marriage contract, or even a good sample of one?

I agree that there are times when it would be nice to have a written "understanding" of what defines one's relationship, something that both parties would agree to but not necessarily involving government at any level. But you don't need one.

> In this day and age of gay marriage questions, and all of the
> Libertarians speaking up about how eliminating the state's role in
> 'marriage' is the next step, I cannot seem to find ANY good sample
> contracts to use.
> Google didn't find one, though it found lots of essays and talk about
> it. But not even an armchair 'IANAL' version of a sample contract.


> This isn't purely a what if, I'm looking for something for a real life
> partnership, in the near near future.

This strikes me as something that you'd work out with your prospective partner.

> Paying a lawyer to draft one from scratch seems silly, though I would
> agree that consulting one by both sides with a seemingly good contract
> in hand would be worthwhile... but I can't even find a sample to start
> from.

Paying a lawyer to draft one would be silly, because they're trained to deal with things in a particular legal framework, and you're trying to create a new framework.

> Legally, I'm thinking a ketubah (The Jewish Marriage contract) is a
> good legal foundation to start with. Plenty of 'case law' that would
> be hard to invalidate or claim lack of grounds.
> I have no interest in signing a marriage license, or even worrying
> about the state claiming I'm not married (heck, please do so, so you
> can leave my 'non-wife' alone and not attempt to use her to come after
> me sideways, in fact I'm completely willing to be sure and state that
> in the eyes of the 'law' this is not a state approved marriage and as
> such isn't subject to treatment as such, but only as a contract between
> us, our heirs, etc....)
> Please feel free to consult your friends and lawyers (and if you are
> friends with a lawyer, shame on you...) and let me know what you find
> if anything.
> Seth Cohn
> sethcohn@yahoo.com

You could always do what I did, back in 1978 (!). We decided, after some discussion, that we were going to live together. The subject of "marriage" did come up, though I wasn't real hot on the idea since I'd gotten out of one not all that long before entering this relationship, and wasn't eager to jump into another one.. My objection to it is fairly simple: I don't think that we need the "permission" or "approval" of either any government agency at any level, or of "the church"—ANY of them. And this relationship is still going strong, all these years later. Sometimes people find it awkward to deal with the fact that she and I still have different last names, but to the six little ones that call me "grampa" the relationship is there, and real, and not dependent on any "official" sanction.

Yes, it might be nice to delineate that "understanding" you have with that partner on paper, just to be sure you're both understanding the same sort of things, but it won't be enough. There will be things you won't have thought of, there will be things that you understand differently, even looking at the same words saying the same things. And people change, and grow, and want different things out of a relationship as time goes by.

An earlier article in TLE prompted a bit of correspondence on my part with the author. I wouldn't mind finding "ceremonies" and things to collect (I collect way too much in terms of text files here :-), particularly something that could be used as an "affirmation" of what we have. I still haven't found it, but that's not a big deal. As with so much else whenever I go looking I end up stumbling across all sorts of interesting stuff...

Good luck!

Roy J. Tellason

In the article "Socialistic Promotion"
Todd Andrew Barnett writes:

> That's the heart of the tragedy there, given that these two couldn't
> careless about whether government "public" school kids are absorbing their
> real history and the real facts that support that said history.


> If such an act were carried out, the socialist paradigm that has fused
> the education system with the State would no longer exist. Such an act
> would also signal the destruction of the government's ability to rev
> up its propaganda machine that spews out the view that collectivism
> and tribalism must dominate the mind of the individual and that
> individual ideas and beliefs, even when such tenets are presented and
> questioned, must not be allowed to exist. This gives the State a
> distinct advantage: to brainwash our children by means of
> indoctrination and stultified ideas.

And this, unfortunately, is a process that's been going on for several generations now...

> Because of all this, these kids never learn their real history—that is,
> true free markets produce wealth and prosperity and governments destroy them
> —and instead learn altered versions of their American heritage. Let's face
> it—they don't know any better if the lies they are told are repeatedly
> instilled in their heads. In the end, they learn what every school
> child learns: that welfare is "wealth," that control is "freedom,"
> that government regulations "saved free enterprise," and that
> government and the country are "one and the same."

> When all is said and done, we should identify social promotion by its
> real name: socialistic promotion. But make no mistake; that is only a
> symptom of the real disease, which is government regulation, subsidy,
> and control of education. The cure is a separation of education and
> state. The method to accomplish this is to repeal the school and
> property taxes that feed the statist organism we call "public
> education."

While repealing the taxes has a certain appeal, realistically these folks aren't going to give up their source of revenue like that. And the majority of the people who are paying into that system aren't going to want to take on the responsibilities for themselves, because they don't see a problem with the current system, for the most part.

We do have an alternative to, or at least a supplement to, this system. We're using it right now to communicate...

You mention "real history" in the article. Not all that long ago in the TLE Yahoo mailing list I tossed out the idea that a lot of "real" history could be put together and propagated, cross-linked, and fertilized by the enthusiasm of those who participated in the process.

I don't have a web site, don't have any idea (yet?) as to how I'd get such a thing hosted. What I do have is a certain amount of skill with HTML, and a fair-sized pile of historical documents that I've picked up here and there. And there are a lot more of them out there for the taking, from what I understand. Anybody wishing to get in on this, suggest ideas, send flames, or whatever, join me on the Yahoo list or feel free to email me.

Roy J. Tellason

Re: "The Christ-Killers", by Manuel Miles, aka Kapt Kanada

"For the record: the Holy Bible (and Mel's film) makes it clear that Jesus of Nazareth was tortured, reviled, and finally horribly assassinated by imperial Roman soldiers at the behest of a clique of quislings in an occupied land. [Occupying soldiers acting on behalf of a puppet regime terrorising the population of a middle eastern land? All of this gives me the strongest sense of deja-vu, for some reason...]"

How can anything be "made clear" by two incredibly biased, unsupported sources like "Holy Bible (and Mel's film)?" And, by the way, this is NOT what I have found in the Book you mention, which says that Jesus of Nazareth was killed because it was the "Will of God" that he suffer and die, a Will He agreed with and accepted freely, NOT the action of any human or group of humans. Your interpretation of events is, according to that Book, most evil blasphemy and shows your lack of comprehension of the principles involved.

The article also said:

"So who are the Christ-killers of our time? Could it be the blaspheming "Christian" administration of Emperor Bush II? Could it be the mob of US citizens who endorse every imperial war of aggression whether it masquerades as "a humanitarian intervention" or self-defence against imaginary weapons or a "punishment" of a nation that supposedly harboured Al-Qaeda? Could it be phony American "Christians" who support every evil act perpetrated against innocent Palestinian civilians by the regime of a war criminal? Who are the Christ-killers, after all?"

As always, the main "Christ-killers" are the Christians, the Jesus-fans, who ignore His actual teachings as reported in their Holy Book in order to cling to their conscience-neutralizing belief systems. They equate the total transformation of being The Christ taught with "believing in Jesus," as if credulousness and gullibility were synonymous with Spiritual rebirth. By promoting this false "gospel" they make The Christ look like just another religious leader, just another promoter of religion and religiosity.

The article also said:

"Don't look at me that way; I'm just asking."

No, in fact you are promoting your own version of events and interpretation thereof and it's dead wrong, whether you believe the Bible account or not.

BTW, I am NOT a "Christian."

Rocky Frisco
rock@rocky-frisco.com http://www.rocky-frisco.com

Yo, Rocky!—A Response to a "Rebuttal"

While I had hoped to provoke some serious debate with my recent article, "The Christ-Killers", the only "rebuttal" received (at the time of this writing) was from one "Rocky Frisco". Unfortunately, it's rather difficult to take his comments seriously, for several reasons:

1) He refers to the Holy Bible and 'The Passion of the Christ' as "two incredibly biased, unsupported sources". Perhaps one should consult atheists in order to find unbiased, "supported" sources of Christian beliefs? Maybe the Rosicrucians, the Illuminati or the Straussians would be better "sources"?

2) He goes on to explain that the Crucifixion of Christ had nothing to do with the actions of human beings based on "...what I have found in the Book..." despite the fact that, by his own proclamation, he is "...NOT a 'Christian'," and the Bible is an "incredibly biased, unsupported source." Maybe it transforms when he reads it; perhaps his all-seeing eye throws light wherever it gazes? Such humility...

3) He then has the audacity to refer to my views as "error and arrogance" and "your own version of events and interpretation thereof and it's dead wrong..." and "...most evil blasphemy [which] shows your lack of comprehension of the principles involved."

How can it be that the beliefs of Christians about what Christians believe are inferior to an interpretation of the Bible by one who admits to being a non-believer, much less "evil blasphemy", et cetera? And how can he "explain" away Christians' beliefs by imposing his pagan version of events and interpretation of the Bible, when he has just finished calling the Good Book an "incredibly biased, unsupported" source?!?

Apparently, like Emperor Bush, he is omniscient; a legend in his own mind. I suspect that he resents the comparison of the US imperial occupation of Iraq to the Roman imperial occupation of Palestine, but it is obvious that he hates "religion and religiosity".

We just can't all be as humble as Rocky Frisco, I guess. We also can't enter into an argument with him when he moves the goalposts and changes the rules to suit his own humble "version of events".

My kingdom for an opponent with integrity and an ability to argue reasonably.

Peace and Liberty,

Manuel Miles, aka Kapt Kanada

Re: http://www.ij.org/publications/liberty/2004/13_2_04_b.asp

Good job.

But be warned, citizens of Lakewood, your work is not yet done. This one battle is over, but there are more to come unless you take decisive action and wrest control of your city government from the hands of the greedy and corrupt.

Your next mission, should you decide to accept it, is to remove from power every elected and appointed official involved in the attempted theft of your homes. Unless you make it very clear that abuse of eminent domain will result in an involuntary transfer to the unemployment line, these goons will continue to abuse their powers and violate your rights.

The day is soon coming, if you don't take action now, when withholding your vote from those in power will be seen as a terrorist threat. Don't believe me? Look at Florida. There are two bills in that state's legislature, HB 1513 and SB 2458 that would legalize exactly the kind of theft that Lakewood narrowly avoided. One person wrote House Majority Leader Mike Fasano concerning these bills and flat out told Fasano that his November vote hinged on his actions with respect to this legislation.

Fasano's response boiled down to "How dare you threaten me, prole." Obviously this tyrant sees the withdrawal of consent for his tyranny as a threat, as well he should. This is our last grasp at a peaceful solution. Fail in this, and it may well become time to "shoot the bastards".

Frank Ney

Hey Ken;

Here's something that friends of freedom might want to look at:


James J Odle

Apparently, the 9th circuit has retained a few brains. They have now showed some sense where medical marijuana is concerned.

The Drug Policy Alliance is thrilled to tell you that a federal court in California has come down in our favor on a landmark lawsuit against John Ashcroft to secure access to medical marijuana by sick and dying patients. This is an important victory for the medical marijuana movement.

We will have more details out to you in the days ahead, but the essence is this—on Wednesday, we cleared a major hurdle in our struggle to stop the federal government from persecuting medical marijuana patients and providers.


Is the War on drugs turning in our favor?

James J Odle

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 269, May 2, 2004