Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 595, November 14, 2010

"The secession of the individual from the state"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 Adrian

Letter from Paul Bonneau

Letter from E.J. Totty

Letter from A.X. Perez

FDA Cigarette Warnings

L. Neil:

By now, you have probably heard about the gruesome warnings that the FDA wants to put on cigarettes.

They want to show corpses, charred lungs, people with tracheotomies, and so forth.

I would like to go on record as to say that the government is really going too far with this one.

I am a non-smoker who is tired of seeing smokers treated as less-than-intelligent people.

Anyone who chooses to smoke is certainly aware of the costs and benefits of tobacco consumption.

And so the FDA should be condemned by all liberty-loving Americans.


Re: E.J. Totty's letter

I was gratified by Shelley's "The Great Milk Robbery", in response to my letter to the editor. It is exciting when one writes something, and another understands perfectly the point one is trying to make—and better yet, expands and clarifies the point.

Inevitably, there is someone who misses the point, replacing the actual argument made with one that was dreamed up. Totty did this. I can find not a single place where Shelley (or myself for that matter) argued that "theft is perfectly okay, as long as you might get away with that." In fact Shelley argues directly the opposite, "...I would never steal someone's milk..." One normally does not advocate X by saying he would never do X!

People really ought to try setting aside preconceptions before reading such articles. This allows one to correctly detect the actual point being made.

As to whether my arguments originated in Harry Browne's mind or not, I don't know. I have read a couple of his books many years ago. Maybe some meme was lodged in my mind at the time. As many have noted, there aren't that many original ideas out there. I do know Jeff Snyder has written on this some, and Stefan Molyneux has a podcast or two digging into the notion of property in very great detail. I've been influenced by many like this. But I also just wonder what exactly property is, and whether it is necessarily connected to the state; and if not, how is it modified so that it still works reasonably. Unlike "left libertarians", I do think property survives as a useful (if not crucial) concept, but probably somewhat different than when the state is mixed into it, and therefore different from what we are used to.

Paul Bonneau

The following is a most excellent treatise on why AGW isn't.

I can't say enough for both the explanatory, i.e., 'plain English' description, but also the exposition of scientific knowledge!

It's a bit long—several pages—so you might want to set aside some time to consume and digest it.

This REALLY kicks the AGW argument right out of the court, the ball field, and the debate!

The explanation is so well done, that someone not otherwise trained in the science of climate, could well hold his own in a debate against the AGW crowd and win, hands down!


E.J. Totty

American Pride

Thanks to Rex May for bringing this to my attention:

Apparently a kid in California got in trouble for having the Stars and Stripes flying from his bicycle. It seems the principal at his school was concerned that displaying Old Glory would be taken as a racist gesture. Latinos who fly the Mexican flag might take offense. The kid was required to not fly the Colors.

Being a Texican, where people with Spanish last names consider loyalty to the United States and pride in the American flag a matter of pride and a requirement to living up to our ethnic heritage I am truly insulted by this putz of a principal. More importantly, since when did a person have to essentially assert their First Amendment Rights to express loyalty to their nation. Dissent to US policy of course, but having to appeal to the freedom of speech rights to express loyalty?

In the immortal word of John Stossel "Give me a break!" Of course, it did happen in California, where sedition and treason are recreational activities (are they still even in the Union?).

Still: what do you call a society where patriotism is treason and treason is patriotism? You call it a tyranny!!

A.X. Perez


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!

Big Head Press