Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 521, May 31, 2009

"There is good news and bad news."

  Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication

[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]

Letter from Jim Davidson

Letter from Ann Morgan

Letters from Jim Davidson and Mike Blessing

Letter from Mike Oliver

Letter from A.X. Perez

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Another Letter from Jim Davidson

Dear Editor,

Scott Graves, who is a very bad person in life, disagrees with me about the need for Americans to act against those who murder, torture prisoners to death, slaughter civilians at home and abroad, conduct nuclear, biological and chemical weapons tests on civilians, routinely punish people who have not been convicted of any crime, etc. As I said in my essay, he can go to hell.

Scott wants me to reach out to murderers, thugs, torturers, and other vile abominations. I don't have any plans to make such outreach part of my networking. Scott asks, "Roughly half pf the population of this country gets a check from the government, depending on how you define 'guilty' that will be a lot of dead bodies."

In my essay "Rise!" ( I defined "guilty." It has nothing to do with receiving a government payment. About 52% of the population does receive money in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, or Socialist Insecurity payments, but in all those cases, they first had enormous amounts of money taken out of their pay by that same government. As Redd Foxx once said, the government takes in buckets and gives back in drips and drops. I am not content that even as idiotic a person as Scott could get a "crime against humanity" out of accepting a small amount of money stolen from one in compensation for being stolen from for years.

Evidently, from his comments, Scott does not have any problem with people who torture their prisoners to death, slaughter entire cities full of civilians, wear the boot stomping the human face, forever. He sympathises with these people, says that they are normal human beings, have families, should not ever be harmed. Because, you know, that would make them and their families dislike us libertarians.

But the maraschino cherry on the crap sundae Scott has built is his comment, "over what amounts to a political disagreement." You see, Scott has no problem with torturing prisoners to death, exterminating 90% of the human race if they happen to live in villages in foreign countries, or doing any other evil thing. It is just a political disagreement to him, whether those in power should go on killing, torturing, imprisoning, thwarting liberty.

Scott, you are a horrible, evil man. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Perhaps for his next trick, Scott will join the Nazi party. That'll show us.


Jim Davidson

Dear Editor:

Last week L. Neil Smith wrote in one of his articles: Most of all—and if you take nothing else away from this essay, take this—we can no longer afford to fight every issuee the enemies of freedom present us with.

I agree very strongly with this statement. Freedom means that you get to do what you want, so long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. It does NOT mean you get to prevent others from doing things you have some sort of personal, religious, or other problem with. There are probably an endless number of issues the enemies of freedom can give us to squabble about. Although most issues are probably soluble either through an advanced enough technology or an advanced enough ethical system, these advances will inevitable create potential new problems to squabble about. Case in point, the abortion debate is probably eventually soluble by various technological means, including a foolproof system of birth control, the developement of an artificial womb, and a few other things. There are various people who will claim that these solutions are inherently objectionable, usually by playing the 'God Card' and claiming that the solution for some reason or the other is against the will of whatever diety they happen to believe in.

Now, it seems to me that this is a pretty arrogant claim, since for among other reasons, it implies that the one who makes the claim is holier than everyone else, and has a monopoly on knowing what their particular diety thinks. But that's neither here nor there, the real reason and result for objecting to various technological or other solutions to a problem that causes squabbling is that the person making the objection gains something from the problem not being solved, and the squabbling over it continuing.

But I digress. As I mentions, advances of technology or philosophy can solve certain problems, but they inevitably create new problems, which have equal or greater potential to be squabbled over. Case in point, there is a somewhat well-known individual who claims to be in favor of freedom. However, it turns out that the sort of freedom this individual (who I will not name) believes in, is such that they have an objection to genetic engineering, and would prevent me (or anyone) from performing genetic experiments on myself. This opens up a whole new area for people to squabble about. Google the term 'transhumanists' sometime. It refers to a group of people whose fondest desire is to use genetic engineering, cybernetics, biofeedback, nootropic drugs, alchemy, magic, or whatever other method they think (rightly or wrongly) will elevate them and/or their descendents to whatever particular condition they think is the next level of human evolution. As in the cases of abortion and immigration, arguing with those who are transhumanists is extremely unlikely to change their mind on the particular opinions they hold, and insisting on squabbling about this issue, or any of countless other issues that are inevitably going to be raised by new forms of technology, simply serves to continue the division of those who are in favor of freedom.

Ann Morgan

Dear Mike,

Just a quick note to follow up on your recent letter. Zimbabwe stopped with making everyone a trillionaire.

You can look it up, but as I recall it was in February 2009 that it became obvious even to the syphilis-addled brain of that vicious tyrant Mugabe that printing more money wasn't working. Besides, he had to pay the printers with hard currency. lol

So, he stopped. Now he's making the rounds of the internationalists (African Union, European Union, etc.) and international banking gangsters (IMF) seeking funds. He's sort of patched things up with one of his recent opponents in the project of running Zimbabwe—which seems to amount to putting some millions of people on some of the most fertile land in the world and then never stop raping their brains out.

Which, on the whole, would be destined to fail if it weren't for the idiots who confound all efforts to arm a rebellion in that country by enforcing evil strictures against trafficking in arms.


Jim Davidson

To which Mike Blessing replied:

Actually, with the release of the "hundred trillion" note, everyone there is at least a quadrillionaire. Hence my suggestion for scientific notation on the bills.

Google "Zimbabwe dollar" and select for "Images"—you'll see pictures of people posing with armloads of cash. I guess that the more enterprising thieves already made off with the more valuable wheelbarrows.

Or see the .jpg of one I've posted here—

Does this mean that we'll start getting the scam spam from Zimbabwe, advertising the billions and trillions to be had, if only we provide a bank account to put it into, along with "transfer fees" ?

Mike Blessing

To which Jim Davidson replied:

Dear Mike,

Just a quick follow up to supply links.

Zimbabwe legalised foreign currency in September 2008, effectively admitting defeat in its quest for economic salvation through printing.

Suspension of their currency printing for a year took place earlier this year.

Inflation is dropping there, finally.

However, Zimbabwe's people now have to worry about hyperinflation in the USA dollar—out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Wikipedia offers a fairly good review of the situation, but since Neil doesn't like wikipedia, finding it is left as an exercise for the reader. The short version is that without the series of re-valued dollars (striking off a few of the zeros at a time) the total inflation is roughly 1x10^25 or ten septillion.

I do not agree that everyone became a quadrillionaire. The $100 trillion Zimbabwe dollar note was worth about US$30 at issue in January 2009. I think you'll find that the average person in Zimbabwe makes about 50 cents a day. So, everyone was a trillionaire, but you vastly over-estimate their ability to earn anything in that tyrant-demolished economy.

Perhaps some of the leading gangsters were quadrillionaires. Not the average guy or gal.


Jim Davidson

If Mr. Integrity were not so busy... raping and pillaging for profit in what remains of the U.S. stock market (functioning as a small hedge fund manager), I would actually get around to starting up a Mr. Integrity blog again. And if I did I would hoist this L Neil Smith piece up as a feature article for sure. A fellow-minded rational libertarian, just up the road me 30 minutes (we had a great meet and dinner with L. Neil and family a week ago). He is responding here to the news that now clogs the pipelines of news sources as well as blogs, and which is beginning to make libertarians, limited statists and even civil libertarians on the Left very uneasy. He offers a tactical approach that I don't think has been offered to date.

I think his shotgun broad concept-defense approach makes great sense.

Hey—the Left pulled just such a "broad cultural" objection to all things non-socialist, industrial, and rational some decades ago, and made much cultural/political progress in bringing "out of the closet" those implicit aspect of mainstream Judeo-Christian-Marxist thought that they thought had been neglected by their elders (i.e. mysticism, "non-objective thought"of Plato, lack of discrimination about reality and concepts of reality, films that accommodated and celebrated this style of life, music that fit this style of life)—and yet they did not really advance a single overriding precisely definable premise—a shotgun approach to their non-objective Nirvana. And in so doing they obviously appealed to a sufficient number of converts and fellow travelers to perpetuate their tantrum—for a human lifetime. So that now their kids can enjoy and hopefully begin to suffer the life-smothering effects thereof.

Libertarians and even those who only grasp just this or that premise of "liberty" (gun "rights" folks, ACLU types, etc.) could find a motor in this strategy.

Anyway, L. Neil Smith (sci-fi author of more than 20 titles) arrives at an interesting strategy (possibly the only?) and in a well-worded way.

The Left in the late 1960's/early 1970's called it guerilla theater and protest, etc. etc. Basically throwing cultural and political sand in the eyes of all, causing Nixon and team to get headaches, to pull out their Maalox, and ultimately to cause Nixon step over even the statist legalese lines. And in the final result the Yippies and Hippies and more importantly the SDS'rs got some temporary (couples decades) of result and trend for their efforts. Given that their concepts are mostly invalid (as is the mainstream of Judeo-Christian-Marxist philosophy on which they were riding), not connected to any sort of objective reality (they deny its existence anyway) hence unfit to persist on earth when applied, it would seem reasonable that libertarians should be able to stage guerrilla theater of this sort with far more lasting results.

Mike Oliver

A while back I suggested that if tyrants insist on imposing taxes they tax stupidity.

Stupidity is one of the human character flaws that permit tyranny. The idea was and remains that by taxing stupidity we could make it even more deleterious to reproductive success, thus helping tyrants self destroy, or at least make a useful contribution to the gene pool, or rather a useful cleaning of the pool.

I now propose that we tax cowardice. In the first place it is often cowardice that causes people to turn to tyrants to solve problems. It is often cowardice, especially moral cowardice, that causes people to submit to tyranny and /or refrain from resisting tyranny when the opportunity arises.

The beauty of a tax on cowardice is that the cowards will pay, by definition they will lack the physical and moral courage to not pay. The state will not have to spend as much money on enforcing a cowardice tax, nor will it have to confer any benefit on the cowards to gain their acquiescence. Meanwhile they will reduce the poltroons' reproductive success, thus increasing the percentage of the population with the memes and the genes to resist tyranny.

It will be a while before we can rid ourselves of governments that insist on getting into our pocketbooks. Until we can do so, or at least control their appetite for and ability to seize our wealth, let us insist that the power to tax be used to help cure the human race of stupidity and cowardice. tyrants often excuse their behavior as necessary to controlling vice. Let them use their power to end the vices of cowardice and stupidity,

A.X. Perez

Be prepared to have what ammo is available determine your choice of what gun you buy. the re is no point in falling in love with a Browning GP-35 in .40 Liberty when the only ammo available is .38 Special.

On a pleasant note, thanks to their ability to handle .45LC and both 2.5 and 3" .410 shotgun loads, the Taurus Judge chambered for three inch shells should be able to have something available. Plus it's legal in even the most barbaric antigun jurisdictions.

A.X. Perez

Dear Editor,

It may have come to your attention that Tom Knapp has been conducting an experiment in shadow cabinetry. As I was appointed "shadow cabinet NASA Administrator," it seemed appropriate to comment on some recently proposed appointments by president Obama.

Excerpt from:

"Which policy path should we anticipate would be chosen by Bolden? I believe the clues to his preferences are found in his job history. He has not been involved in private commercial space companies. His military and astronaut careers argue for a government-oriented outlook. His post-NASA career as a lobbyist for rocket contractor Alliant Techsystems and his position on the board of directors of Constellation contractor (and conglomerate) GenCorp suggest he'll prefer a government dominated space policy approach."


Jim Davidson


Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest

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 521, May 31, 2009

Big Head Press