THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 413, April 15, 2007
"And so it goes. . . ."
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
As a long time Libertarian, I must commend you and all of the other writers that make TLE possible. I love the rebellious spirit and dialogue. We as libertarians need more of this. We need to reject the alliance with conservatives (throughout history the enemies of liberty), and embrace the radical nature of the legacy our forefathers left us from the American Revolution. The American Revolution was an earth shattering event which, like it's predessor, the French, sent shockwaves throughout the world and into the hearts of elites. Look at the committees of correspondence, inspection and safety in Massachusetts, Virginia and NY. Wow! We need to rekindle, the "flames of 1776" as Jefferson said. We must embrace the true radical nature and consequences of the American Revolution. Your site gives me much hope that I am not alone. We must reject both right and left and forge ahead and pick up where the classical liberals left off. Overall, a great site!
Re: "How Many Guns Do You Need?" by Ron Beatty
After careful meditation I have concluded that honest gun owners need as many guns as I need knives, i.e., one more than they already have. They do not have to explain this need to anyone, except spouses who would rather they spend their money on something else, this being a spouse's privilege. This answer will of course be unacceptable to the people Col. Cooper called hoplophobes, but it may contribute to staving off a recession by adding to the GNP. King Leroy answered the question in the movie Farewell to the King.
They finally admitted it. In an article in the online version of The Bradenton Herald: "Judge grants defense more juror 'strikes' in Padilla case", Vin Suprinowicz has been vindicated in his definition of "voire dire" as French for jury tampering.
If you will notice in Paragraph 3 (which I have quoted here)
"In any criminal case, both sides are allowed an unlimited number of challenges to jurors for "cause" such as obvious impartiality. (underline added) Peremptory challenges allow lawyers to remove jurors without giving any reason; normally the defense gets only 10 and prosecutors six."
So apparently we now want only partial jurors. For which side, I wonder?