L. Neil Smith's
Number 299, November 28, 2004

"Just minding your own business"

[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 EJ Totty

Letter from Charles Stone

Dear Editor/Mr. Ed/Ken,

Re.: Letter from Mike Lorrey

I'd call Mike Lorrey's letter a rant, except that it isn't. Rather, it is instead a diatribe slanted towards a political ideal which is—in its entirety—antithetically against the idea of 'just minding your own business.'

Or, as William Pitt once uttered:
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
—William Pitt to the House of Commons, 18 November 1783"

Lorrey has not only missed the whole idea of what libertarianism is, but has additionally attempted to attach to the idea of liberty, jagged pieces from corrupt polities in an attempt to reconcile libertarianism with his personal ideas on how to mind-the-business of yet others.

In fact, Lorrey begins to sound like so many Rs & Ds, communists/socialists, and fascists.

In the case he—or others of his ilk, miss the point?

The idea of right and wrong is pretty much determined—in some people's minds, as what they say is right, and not right inherently.

That difference is defined as:

In the same way that my rights, liberty, and ownership of property do not in any way depend/rely upon the acts of yet others, then it may be said that interfering with the acts of those others who have done not a thing to you, is an act of outright aggression, plain and simple.

If Mike Lorrey had simply stated that individuals having a concern about the legitimate rights of others—wherever those 'others' may happen to be, should just pick up and go do something themselves without hijacking a whole nation to do his bidding in the process?

Why, I would have agreed wholeheartedly.

But, he didn't.

Instead, Lorrey would seek legitimacy of action by attempting to harness the whole of the Libertarian community, and pervert it to an otherwise distinctly different polity.

The whole of human endeavor has everything to do with the matter of 'reciprocity.' That is, 'what goes around, comes around.'

If you desire to be left alone, then it is incumbent upon you to practice what you preach. Since Lorrey desires to interfere in the lives of yet others in other nations, there will come a time when those nations will act in accord to the same dictates as Lorrey's: They will mind our business with the same degree of disrespect for individual liberty, and with the same intensity as Lorrey's ideas of moral high ground actions.

The 'moral high ground' is actually a mound within a deep pit that resides within a deeper pit yet.

"Saying 'it isn't our place to judge other cultures' is a complete leftie-liberal cop out (as much of a cop-out as the wasted vote fallacy). It is our place as libertarians to judge not just our own, but every culture, society, government, group, or individual human being for each one's respect for ZAP (it is especially the place of those who so enjoy imposing litmus tests and star chambers on fellow libertarians). National borders, according to Libertarian dogma, are illegitimate fictional creations of illegitimate governments. This is why we support open immigration. Why then do we say that our rights (or other people's) end at the nation's borders?"

That is about the best example as I might produce regarding the attempt to reconcile antithetical political themes.

If the whole idea of libertarianism is 'mind your own business,' then any idea either contrary or divergent, is not libertarian. Rather, it is something else.

To 'answer' the last question in the above quote, I would say only this:
Your border is at the outer layer of your epidermis—should you happen to be nude, or at the border of your clothing or real property—depending upon circumstances.

If you desire to ally yourself with others for any particular reason, then you must accept the fact that what they do now re-identifies you as well.

The quintessence of libertarianism is simply this: You cannot be what you say you are if you do something different than what the idea of individual liberty dictates: Mind your own business. And, minding your own business is precisely what the ZAP is all about.

If you step outside that envelope of personal acts, then you are not a libertarian—but are in fact, something else. Maybe some kind of 'hyphen' libertarian?

in Liberty,
EJ Totty

Re: Letter from "Chemical" Ali Massoud


Golly, I guess there are some people who do have a "...Right Not To Be Offended." Who'da thunk?

I find it interesting that Mr. Massoud trots out the same tired rhetoric as that used by several high-profile race warlords when they are faced with any criticism of their particular protected group.

Perhaps the "Chemical" refers to large quantities of nitrogen, oxygen and trace elements raised to a high temperature.

I consider myself chastised and castigated.

"Biological" Charles Stone

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 299, November 28, 2004