Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 383, September 3, 2006

"It's the end of the 8000-year Age of Authority."


Will the REAL Lady of Liberty please raise a Lighted Torch?
by Dennis Lee Wilson

Special to TLE

The inscription on the Statue of Liberty reads:

    "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
    The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

What a remarkable open policy! And this is also the chosen symbol of the Libertarian Party! I notice that nowhere does it say "But only after they have been properly vetted, tempest-tossed some more, and stamped and fully approved for political correctness by the immigration bureaucrats of Amerika's Fascist [3] Government, will they be allowed to actually breathe free and come out of the darkness of tyranny to enjoy the light of liberty."

(Hmmm. For some reason, I can no longer find the "c" when I type "Amerika". Perhaps the light has faded more than I expected. DLW)

Note: in the following article, I have preceded quotes from Lady Liberty articles with > to help distinguish them from my comments. I've also included my comments within square [ ] brackets.

The article "Ready, Set. . ." by the author with the anonymous pseudonym "Lady Liberty" (THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 382, August 27, 2006 has many very good points. In a wider context, however, it is a mockery of Freedom and Liberty. Let me explain. In the article is the statement:

    >"It's those who make excuses who really do the least good and the most damage to a cause. There's always something more important, some 'obstacle in the way.' The bottom line, though, is that those obstacles apparently represent less some insurmountable problem than they do something some are willing to exchange for freedom."

I find this a very interesting and insightful statement, especially when this line of reasoning is applied to the reasons that some people give for rejecting the libertarian idea of open borders, such as is found in "Who, Me?" [2] written by the same pseudo-anonymous Lady Liberty.

    >"How much do you make? Write that down. That, my friend, is the value you've apparently placed on freedom. It is, after all, what you're selling it for."

This is an interesting concept and good advice! Let me pretend I am a libertarian (see emphasized portion of [1] below) who had the unfortunate luck of being born in Mexico—further north than the southern tips of Texas or Arizona, but still in Mexico. I ask myself "How good is my job here in Mexico? For what price am I selling my freedom by staying here because of my job?" [Emphasis added.]

    >"Most of us wouldn't trade our loved ones for anything. But would we deliberately offer them up to eventual slavery. . .? Of course not! So why is it that we're staying with our families instead of doing everything we can to get our families to come with us?" [Emphasis added.]

Again this is good advice. In fact, I have reason to believe that my own ancestors dealt with this very same issue when they came to America before the secession from England. (And before America became spelled with a "k".)

And so again, as a pretend libertarian [1] born in Mexico, I ask myself that same question,. . .

. . .and I ponder this next statement,

    >"'But it will never work!' Maybe it won't. But 'maybe' becomes a certainty if pessimism is the rule of the day."

and ask myself the question after that.

    >"'But it will be hard!' Yes, it will. But have you ever in your life found anything worthwhile to be easy?"

And of course, having asked all these questions, I would very likely come to the same conclusions stated by Lady Liberty:

    >". . .the logical thing for them to do. . . relocating, and living by newly affirmed principles."

    >"What I can do is burst through the remaining obstacles getting in the way of my own life and proceed to live it now rather than in some undetermined fantasy future. Lines were drawn years ago, and crossed and crossed again. Now it's up to us to decide whether or not we're ready to cross a few lines ourselves. . ." [Emphasis added.]

The analogy about the lines is interesting and appropriate. Was one of them arbitrarily drawn in the desert sand between the Rio Grande River and the Pacific Ocean?

But there IS one additional, humongous obstacle: people who call themselves "libertarians" live where I seek my freedom and THEY MOCK ME. They make grand talk about Freedom and Liberty and how to achieve it, while they advocate and approve of Statist governmental intervention to obstruct me and my family from reaching my goal. Of all the various types of people, who would expect such hypocrisy from alleged advocates of Freedom!

Of course, they attempt to cover up their hypocrisy with all kinds of excuses and rationalizations, but that just takes us back to the first quote from Lady Liberty near the beginning of this article. "It's those who make excuses who really do the least good and the most damage to a cause."

* * *

Just in case there may be any doubt: it was YOU, Lady Liberty, and others like you who are NOT consistent about Liberty, that I addressed in my article "Ask the Right Question—An interview with a Neo-LINO" in The Libertarian Enterprise Number 367, May 14, 2006. (

I hope I have been able to show your contradictions to you and I hope you understand how and why they ARE contradictions, especially when they are so easily exposed by using your own words. Re-read the Inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Freedom and Liberty are not just for Americans! If you intend to wear the "Liberty" title, you should be worthy of it and prepared to defend it—ALL OF IT, including the Inscription--not just some small part, selectively applied only to those who happened to be born in America.

Either fully integrate your views and correct the contradictions by repudiating your former views against open borders (best option) or quit pretending to be libertarian. If you continue to hold your contradictions, the following "Truth in Labeling Notice" should be branded at the top of all your past and future articles:


If you were not "BORN IN AMERIKA"
or properly vetted, stamped and approved for political correctness
by Amerika's Fascist Government,
the following nice words about
Freedom and Liberty
do not apply to you.

Please choose "best option". It is the only way to stop your words from being a mockery of Freedom and a mockery of your chosen namesake. There is plenty of good written material to help you thru the intellectual change from opponent to proponent of open borders, and there is no shame in admitting a mistake when the survival of Truth, Freedom and Liberty is at stake. We all continue adding to our knowledge, correcting errors and growing. You may loose some friends that you are unable to persuade, but you will definitely gain others.

Dennis Wilson
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent


[1] "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."
—L. Neil Smith [Emphasis added.]

[2] "Who, Me?" by Lady Liberty THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 366, May 7, 2006

[Although nowhere in this article does Lady Liberty claim to be a libertarian, I assume that she so claims because the article was submitted to and published by TLE. Therefore, I assume the responsibility to point out where her statements contradict the definition of libertarian [1] and to state that they need to be repudiated and corrected.]

    >Because I support (and in the strongest possible terms) secure borders, I've been accused of not only being statist but racist as well. "Don't you think everybody has the right to freedom?" Yes, I do. But no one who truly favors freedom can believe in freedom at the expense of others. [!!??!!emphasis added.]

[Apparently a person who is born south of the border and desires freedom, but is denied freedom for the sake of "secure borders", will not be counted as an expense.]

    >And that's what unfettered illegal immigration is doing.

    >The illegal immigrant population is literally costing American taxpayers billions of dollars in schooling, medical care, welfare paymens, and law enforcement that we need not otherwise be spending.

[As I point out in my article "Asking the Right Question", this problem is caused by the welfare state, not by the allegedly "illegal" seekers of freedom, and it can easily be solved overnight by the same welfare state by simply asking for proof of citizenship—as is already done for passports—before dispensing any welfare benefits. Since writing my article, I have learned that there is indeed such a requirement but that the people in charge of the welfare state do not enforce that requirement among their welfare dispensers. Instead they propose to shift that burden to employers, even though employed people are not usually among welfare recipients.]

    >(Yes, I'm well aware that public schools should be privatized and that welfare should be abolished, but that's not happening next week.) Further (for a variety of reasons, not least of which is the ill advised War on Drugs), many of the illegal border crossings are made by a criminal element we'd just as soon not have here (up to and including those bent on further terror attacks).

[I address this at great length in my article also, including references to the Second Amendment.]

    >To suggest our borders be open to all who care to enter is a two-fold problem. First, without borders, we have no country. There's no point.

[And this is a problem because. . .? It was once possible to freely travel most of the world without a passport! What is the point of having a "free" "country" if the gates are locked and guarded by armed soldiers? Are the people inside secure? Or prisoners?]

    >If we want to keep America a destination for freedom, then we need to keep America's lands, citizens, and culture secure.

[Secure from who? Those seeking the "destination for freedom"?]

    >And secondly, entirely open borders mean all comers can enter. Does that sound warm and fuzzy to you? It does to me, too. But I still lock my front door at night, and people who seek entry to my home still knock politely for admittance (those who don't are likely to get a firsthand look at my real support for the Second Amendment.)

    >There's absolutely no difference between our borders and our front door.

[YES, THERE IS A VERY BIG DIFFERENCE! In my article, I point out that *I* am in "your" country, but I am NOT in "your" house.]

    >They're one and the same.


    >And we must be able to pick and choose who can—and more importantly who cannot—enter. . .

[In less confusing language: we only want people who are first properly vetted and approved by Amerika's Fascist Government. So, how many of those "trouble-maker libertarian, freedom freak types" do you think will pass THAT inspection?]

    >. . .if we wish to maintain our free country and our peaceful household. And with thousands of miles of border touching numerous of the fifty states, from our Founders forward it was realized border control was a federal matter—and despite the fact our current administration (as well as its imediate predecessors) is seriously falling down on the job doesn't make it any less a federal responsibility.

[Am I mistaken or is this a "libertarian" calling for an expansion of Amerika's Fascist Government?]

    >I don't believe that legal immigration should be restricted to race, creed, or any factor other than a desire to live free and to actively contribute to your adopted country.

[But of course, YOU don't get to do the approving! They must first be approved by Amerika's Fascist Government, that self appointed guardian of the gateway to freedom.]

    >In fact, if you're not a criminal bent on crime,. . .

[Many from Statist countries (think Nazi Germany) who seek freedom are branded as criminals and jailed or executed if caught! I'm sure that my freedom seeking Scottish ancestors were considered criminals by the English from whom they fled.]

    >. . .and if you're going to assimilate rather than demand Americans cater to you and your language and customs, and if you renounce welfare in favor of hard work, then you ought to be welcome here.

[If, if, if, coulda, woulda, oughta. Why should there be more conditions attached to Freedom and Liberty for immigrants than there are for those Born-in-the-USA?]

    >But if you're disinclined toward any of these things, then stay where you are. I don't want you around me, my neighborhood, or my country. . .

[You can control who enters "your house", but how can it possibly be "your country" and mine at the same time, especially if we disagree about who can enter? The analogy between your house and "our" country is a really bad one and is totally invalid! The country doesn't "belong" to anyone. It is not "owned" by anyone—nor is it owned by everyone! The "country" is just a politically drawn group of lines on a piece of paper representing where one particular gang of Statists expect to wield power and collect taxes while excluding other gangs of Statists.]

    >. . .where you can be a burden on resources and a threat to liberty and sovereignty. That's not racist. That's the unvarnished truth no matter what color you might happen to be.

[A threat to liberty and sovereignty? Indeed! And a gross mockery, too!]

[3] "Liberalism vs. Fascism", by Roderick T. Long and
"The Problem of Fascism", by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Gadsden Flag
Fly the Gadsden Flag

As recommended by Kent McManigal

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

to advance to the next article
to return to the previous article
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 383, September 3, 2006

Bill of Rights Press