Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 524, June 21, 2009


  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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 Kathryn A. Graham

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from Bryan Potratz

Letter from Sean Gabb

Letter from Dennis Wilson

Another Letter from Bryan Potratz

Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from Ann Morgan

Letter from Andrew G Eggleston Sr.

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Remark from Elsewhere

Letter from Rex May

Re: "The Smoking Goons" by L. Neil Smith

I would like to volunteer as another "Smoker Emeritus" in Neil's smokers' union. I quit a little over a year ago, for the second time, but I do qualify for the title of "Emeritus" with 30+ years or so of two packs a day of Marlboro 100s—full flavor, by the way.

I do not now, and never have objected to anyone smoking in my presence—in fact, I have a tendency to sidle downwind and enjoy it. I love the smell of tobacco. It does not make me sick in any way, shape or form, and I believe that (with the very rare exception of a genuine allergy) it does not make the usual whiners sick either. They just want to control your life.

In fact, the very worst thing smoking near me does to me is to make me want a cigarette again. Badly. Oh, poor me.

One thing I have observed over the years is that people quit smoking only when they are good and ready to quit smoking—they cannot be urged, pushed or threatened into quitting. I am sorry it took Neil two heart attacks to attend to his health, but I probably was not far behind that predicament myself when I finally saw the writing on the wall. I am now healthy enough to be dangerous again.

The final word is that people own their own bodies. Whatever they choose to do to those bodies is entirely their choice and no one else's business. I doubt that smoking is anything like as evil as we have been led to believe—the medical statisticians will say I died from smoking if I die of cancer of the big toe thirty years from now having never touched another cigarette—but there is no doubt it has some negative health effects for most people. The point is that no one, for any reason, ever has the right to force you to do anything at all, whether doing that thing would be good for your health or not. And I'm willing to defend your rights in that regard.

Screw the smoking gestapo!!!

Kathryn A. Graham

One Poster Says It All:

by L. Neil Smith & Scott Bieser

And also see:

"The Money of Your Choice"
by L. Neil Smith and Rylla Smith

L. Neil Smith

Re: "KRAP TV" by L. Neil Smith

Of COURSE it was necessary for the Powers that Be to take away Analog TV and give us the middle Digital...

The State Run Media cannot be fully controlled by the State unless they can be shut-off with a flick of the switch.

Digital Broadcast is CONTROLLABLE Broadcast.... And that is the ONLY reason they did it. The rest is just eyewash.

Bryan Potratz

Dear Editor,

The Libertarian Alliance believes absolutely in the right of people to educate their children in their own values—whether these be of their family, their faith, their community or themselves. So far, the British State has not interfered with this right, and Britain is one of the most liberal environments on Earth for home education. In this respect, we are much luckier than Germany—where home education was outlawed by Hitler in 1938, or even many American jurisdictions.

This liberal environment may be about to change, with the acceptance of the Badman Report by the british Government. This will bring in compulsory registration of all home educators, together with inspection and control. These will not at first be very burdonsome. But they will form a precedent for more and more burdonsome regulation, until the right is effectively abolished. Action now means not negotiating a compromise with the authorities. This will simply concede the principle of regulation and buy a little time before effective abolition. We must oppose the very principle of regulation, and raise such a storm of opposition that the authorities back away from this attempt and are forced to wait at least a decade before trying again.

For this reason, WE MUST ACT NOW. The Libertarian Alliance makes no claim to leadership in this campaign. As said, we believe absolutely in the right to home education. The President and Director do have children of their own, and are interested in home education as an option. But we have limited resources, and there are home education movements in the United Kingdom with far greater organisational abilities in this area.

This being said, we do wish to make our own contribution. Here, then, are some of our writings on home education.

1. Our news release of the 11th June 2009. This sets out the nature of the threat, gives our summary response, and provides names and addresses of the politicians concerned for those who wish to write to them.

2. An essay by Sean Gabb from 2004, which sets out the main arguments for home education.

3. "Home Schooling: A British Perspective" by Sean Gabb. Written in 2004, this was published in an American book in 2005. It explains at some length the present legal status of home education, and looks sympathetically at the arguments in favour of home education.

4. Professor John Kersey, "The Belgian State versus Home Schooling: The Persecution of Dr Alexandra Colen and Dr Paul Belien", 2006. This provides an interesting and chilling case study on what happens in a country where home education is formally legal, but subject to state regulation.

5. David Botsford, "Compulsion Versus Liberty in Education, X: Home Education in Britain". Published in 1993, this sets out another case for home education, written from a libertarian perspective.

6. David Botsford, "Ivan Illich and the Deschooling Movement". Also from 1993, this continues the case against forcing children to attend schools, whether state or private.

7. As background to libertarian views on education in general, we would recommend all the essays in our "Educational Notes" series.

Whether or not you are a parent with children of school age, whether or not you live in the United Kingdom, our New Labour Government—even when shambling round like the political equivalent of George A, Romero's zombies—is set on destroying yet another ancient freedom in this country. If that attempt is successful, it will form a precedent for attacks in other countries. Please do take this matter seriously.


Sean Gabb
The Libertarian Alliance
Tel: 07956 472 199
Skype Username: seangabb

FREE download of my book—"Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives Lost England, and How to Get It Back"—

The futility of writing and calling your congressional representative:

Re: "Another Letter from A.X. Perez"

As in many of his previous letters, A.X. Perez in a letter in last week's TLE urges his readers to "...write your congressman and the Customs Service...".

I have attached a brief entry from the Lew Rockwell blog that I HOPE will explain to Mr. Perez WHY I find his continued urgings to be so futile—something that even a college student understands.

Dennis Wilson

How to Escape Criminal Gangs
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on June 8, 2009 07:14 PM

I participated in a forum on state sovereignty at Drexel University a short while ago where the subject of secession came up (naturally). A Pennsylvania state legislator was the other speaker, and while he did not dismiss the possibility of secession he said that it was important to first exhaust all other possibilities, such as writing and calling your congressional representative.

A student in the audience asked him this question in response (paraphrasing): "If a burglar broke in to your home and stole your valuables over and over again, do you think it would be effective to write the burglar a letter asking him to stop it?"

How refreshing to meet a college student who understands the ancient truth that government is just another criminal gang.

To which Mr. Perez replied:

My goal is for the police to find the letter in the dead burglar's pocket when they come to my house to pick up the corpse.

Reading the Declaration of Independence I note that just before concluding that the United States had no choice but to declare independence he mentions repeated efforts to peacefully seek to resolve the differences between colonies and mother country, many of them being the equivalent of letters to Congressional representatives.

Besides, to quote Lazarus Long (among others), maybe the horse will learn how to sing.

A.X. Perez

Re: "Letter from A.X. Perez"

"Students should start with Tai Chi in kindergarten combined with age appropriate gun safety, move on through "soft" styles and techniques..."

I agree whole heartedly, with one caveat: Rather than TaiChi, I would suggest Aikido (particularly ShinShin Toitsu) for the Tots. IMO it's much more appropriate for the size & agility of kidlings, as well as having absolutely no strength or "accuracy" requirements... Also, Aikido has ZAP built into its philosophical structure, much more so than TaiChi (again, IMO...)

Bryan Potratz

[I was asked] "Could you supply your source for this info? I follow gold and politics closely and haven't seen this anywhere else."

The source of my information was, that is the US Mints web site. Revisiting my source this is what I got:

American Eagle Gold Uncirculated Coins

Production of United States Mint American Eagle Gold Proof and Uncirculated Coins has been temporarily suspended because of unprecedented demand for American Eagle Gold Bullion Coins. Currently, all available 22-karat gold blanks are being allocated to the American Eagle Gold Bullion Coin Program, as the United States Mint is required by Public Law 99-185 to produce these coins "in quantities sufficient to meet public demand...."

The United States Mint will resume the American Eagle Gold Proof and Uncirculated Coin Programs once sufficient inventories of gold bullion blanks can be acquired to meet market demand for all three American Eagle Gold Coin products. Additionally, as a result of the recent numismatic product portfolio analysis, fractional sizes of American Eagle Gold Uncirculated Coins will no longer be produced.

Similar messages were left for silver and platinum Eagles, Double Eagles, and gold Buffalos. Careful reading reveals that the mint can not produce collector quality coins (which it could sell at a higher price) because it can't keep up with the demand for bullion grade coins.

So, going by what the Mint says on its web page, if you are looking for simple bullion it's out there but selling fast. If you're looking for collector grade coins they're not being made as of 19 June, 2009 (or else the Mint's web page is out of date.) but should go back into production soon. Unless I' ve bee badly misled, collector grade coins are a somewhat better investment than bullion grade, as their value will go up even when the price of precious metals is steady and their value will not drop quite as fast as bullion and may even rise when the price of metals drops. Assuming you can sell them as collectors items and not at bullion prices of course, so keep track of reputable dealers.

Due to limited circumstances I can't invest much in the metals and coinage trade. Perhaps the editor and/or publisher (Ken, Neil, my apologies for volunteering you guys) can be persuaded to run an article in TLE about the best way to invest in US Mint precious metal coins both as bullion and numismatic collectors items and in what mix allowing for economic circumstances. I'm sure what makes sense for someone with less than a hundred a month to invest in gold and silver coinage is different than what will work for someone with a thousand to five thousand a month to invest.

A.X. Perez

[I called a halt to this discussion after last issue, however Ann Morgan has a good point to make, so one more and also the last—Editor]

Dear Editor:

I would like to comment on the argument occurring the past few weeks in the letter pages here between Jim Davidson and Scott Graves. I am not certain why these two hate eachother so much, and perhaps it is best that I do not know. However, among other disagreements, apparently Jim Davidson believes that certain government officials should be put to death. Scott Graves on the other hand believes: Demanding the deaths of people who in most cases honestly think they are doing what needs to be done seems awfully banana republicy to me.

I am not certain which government officials Davidson believes should be put to death, or precisely what it is these officials have done. Without this information, I can't say whether or not they deserve the death penalty.

However, that said, the reasoning of Scott Graves is completely erroneous. The mental state of a criminal at the time they committed their crimes cannot possibly make any difference to the victims of the crime. Therefore: the fact that someone might "believe" an evil act to be good should not be used in a just society, to excuse them from punishment. By this line of reasoning, you could pardon a Ku Klux Klan member for lynching black people, because they "believe" this to be a good thing.

I would also question whether or not the government officials in question really and truly "believe" their actions to be "good", or whether they are engaged in a combination of doing what they can get away with, what is personally convenient to them, and deliberately ignoring any information that contradicts whatever they prefer to do. Thing is, for me to believe that some person truly believes evil acts to be good, I would have to assume that the person was either mentally incompetent, or incurably insane. The fact that the government officials in question are able to live independently without a caretaker disqualifies them from the former category, and the fact that they do not violently attack every living thing they see in the same fashion as a rabid dog, disqualifies them from the latter.

"Mercy" as a concept, and action, is almost always mistaken, when carried out in a legal context. Part of the problem of this is the confused meaning (for which we can thank the public schools) that most people have of the word. It is not "mercy" to pardon an innocent person, and not execute them. An innocent person does not deserve to die, and pardoning them is not mercy, it is justice. You can only show "mercy" in a legal sense, to the guilty, to someone who deserves punishment, and when you do choose to show mercy to the guilty, it always comes at the expense of something of far greater importance, which is justice to the victims of their crimes.

Ann Morgan

Editor, (is it Ken this week?)

In response to Neil's "The Smoking Goon"s; This is the biggest Red Cape I've seen waved by Washington D.C. lately! This is the crux of the matter right here! Cigarettes are supposed to be a "filthy habit" that you should quit, so why would we care what's in them, why do we care whether those "poor souls" who are still smoking (but only when they drink) have "inspected" tobacco? This is Democrat cronyism, somebody must need a job badly to want to crawl around hot stinking tobacco barns!

Of course, those of you who saw The Fifth Element, saw what government approved cigarettes look like—1/2 inch of tobacco and 3 inches of filter—along with "To quit is my goal" chirped at them each time they took one of their ration of 5!

Come-on people... wake up! This is Big Tobacco we're talking about, the "Evil Empire of Filth"! If they can be swallowed-up by Big Government, then even Alexander Hamilton would say it's time to stand and be counted! "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take it anymore!"—Network (1976)

Neil, I'm standing with you, call me a smoker emeritus as well, the line forms to the right.

Andrew G Eggleston Sr.

[It's Ken every week. "I ain't dead yet!" (Monty Python, "The Death of Mary, Queen of Scots")—Editor]

While doing a totally unrelated search I accidently found out that Bill Clinton claims to be about one sixteenth Cherokee.

The US gave the Trail of Tears, the Cherokee gave us Bill Clinton to be the US's President.


At first it may seem that forcibly expelling the bulk of the Tsalagi and other tribes from their lands and moving them to the Nations (now Oklahoma) so brutally is much worse than anything Slick Willy ever did.

In fact it is worse than any one thing Mr. Clinton. The thing is that Clinton and those in his faction acted and continue to act to reduce all the American people, not just five tribes, to abject slavery. Tens of thousands of the victims of the Indian removal died, millions of all American including the descendents of the five civilized tribes, will die the day The Clintonistas, Obamaistas, and adulators of the O' Cinneideich get to impose their plans in full force. It was Slick Willy who perfect the methodology to gain the power to carry out this program.

Meanwhile the Cherokee deny that Clinton is one of theirs. Good on them.

A.X. Perez

Big corporations are psychopaths. They therefore have no ethical restraints on performing evil. Read the book The Corporationby Joel Bakan or see the (documentary) movie.

Both links to

Baloo News

Hi, all,

Have you seen my Atlantea stips? They're at:

And at:

Here's the latest [this issue of TLE] inspired by Letterman's idiotic joke. Anyhow, as an experiment, I'm also making my Atlantea material (shirts, mugs, caps, etc.) available as merchandise at Zazzle Go here to take a look:

And remember to visit my other sites at:

New stuff there every day.


Rex May
PHONE: 1-970-218-0889
All about me here:


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 524, June 21, 2009

Big Head Press