THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 768, April 27, 2014
Get a rope.
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: "The Truth be Told" by A.X. Perez
A.X. Perez's 4/20 article correctly excoriates those who decry tossing rice at weddings because 'there are children starving in the third world (sorry 'developing nations')'. What is especially galling to me is that these are the same idiots who think that it is a good idea to turn corn into alcohol to fill their flex-fuel mommy vans.
Re: "You Are On Your Own" by John Taylor
Please be advised that, should the situation ever arise where I need protecting, AND you are present, we will both, most likely, be crouched behind cover, firing upon a common opponent. You will know it is I if the man next to you is wearing a ventilated cowboy hat, Hawaiian shirt, and either a kilt with cargo pockets, jeans, or baggy cargo shorts. If I go down, the first aid kit is in the left front pocket. Toss my piece to my wife or son, and carry on the fight!
It occurs to me that I might have been misunderstood in my recent reply to Sue Callaway's observation about turtles and fish and babies. I was not criticizing her thought processes in any way—rather, I was praising them, despite any disgreement we may have over abortion. What I ment to condemn were people who think animals are more important than people.
L. Neil Smith
Re: "You Are On Your Own" by John Taylor
"I will instead take every action I am able to protect myself and others I choose to protect, but I will go no further. Until such time as you stand with me in rejecting obedience to governments of those who seek to control you, you are on your own. "
Amen to that.
Here is the story of an incident that led to me making a similar decision:
From "Unreported—The Crime That Didn't Happen" thepriceofliberty.org
One of the things discussed often by those of us who carry a gun is the possibility of needing to come to the rescue of another person, sometimes a stranger. This can be very dangerous, and great care must be taken not to make a bad situation worse.
I had just come out of the grocery store in Rapid City, South Dakota one late afternoon, and discovered a young man and a woman in a heated argument right next to my car. He began to hit her in the face and she was crying. I yelled at him to STOP, and he turned with a snarl, taking one step toward me. I gripped the gun and flipped off the retention strap. He saw what I was doing and immediately ran around the front of his car and got into the driver's seat. I asked the woman if she needed help, but she snarled at me as well saying, "mind your own business." Opening the car door, she got in and they drove away.
What if he had continued to come toward me? I could have turned and run away, of course, but I hate to think what would have happened if he'd grabbed me and I had to draw and fire the gun. His woman would not likely have been a friendly witness, and there were no other people around close just then. It was a very frightening experience.
I didn't call the police that time either. No proof, no license number for the car, and no real interest in being further involved. If that woman didn't mind being beaten, it wasn't my job to prevent it.
MamaLiberty a.k.a. Susan Callaway
Re: "EDITORIAL MATTERS" in Last Issue
[The Editor quoted:]
"'When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.'" "
Good grief! "Democracy" is the PROBLEM, not the solution. "Democracy" and "oligarchy" are equally evil in kind, if not in degree.
Doesn't matter a bit if the "elites" or legions of "special interest" groups were disenfranchised and the "majorities of the American public" were unimpeded in their "vote." The MAJORITY would still dictate anything it wished to the minority, and would absolutely back that up with any sort of violence they thought necessary. Not to mention that the elites and special interests are fed and watered by "democracy" and would soon return. And that is especially true of any "republic."
The only rational "public policy" is the law of non-aggression. Carried out in voluntary association and the free market, each individual would have full influence over the only life that is legitimately his to control... his own. For anything else, he'd have to learn persuasion, negotiation.
No person, or group of persons, has any legitimate authority over the lives or property of any other person or group. Any time some people are given power to impose their will on others, tyranny is the inevitable result.
MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Marriage equality, freedom of thought not incompatible, say activists and authors Group affirms commitments to "marriage equality, open society, vigorous public debate"
(WASHINGTON, D.C., April 22, 2014)—Affirming their "unwavering commitment to civic and legal equality, including marriage equality," a diverse group of activists, advocates, lawyers, writers, and others issued a statement today that also affirms their "our unwavering commitment to the values of the open society and to vigorous public debate—the values that have brought us to the brink of victory. "
The statement—prompted in part by the resignation of former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich after his contribution to support the 2008 Proposition 8 campaign in California became controversial, and reactions that followed—was published today on the RealClearPolitics web site (http://bit.ly/1icCwTt) under the title "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both."
Among the 58 individuals who signed the statement are University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter, Wayne State University philosophy professor John Corvino, University of Wisconsin political scientist Donald Downs, NYU law professor Richard Epstein, former Arizona superintendent of public instruction Lisa Graham Keegan, Eli Lehrer of the R Street Institute, former national GOP chairman Ken Mehlman, Minnesota state senator Branden Petersen, Jonathan Rauch of the Brookings Institution, former Georgia Supreme Court justice Leah Ward Sears, Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute, author and blogger Andrew Sullivan, and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel.
The signatories—both gay and non-gay, spanning a spectrum of conservative, liberal, libertarian, and progressive worldviews—argue that "sustaining a liberal society demands a culture that respects and welcomes robust debate, vigorous political advocacy, and a decent respect for differing opinions. People must be allowed to be wrong in order to continually test what is right. We should criticize opposing views, not punish or suppress them."
In support of that proposition, they note that a "culture of free speech created the social space for us to criticize and demolish the arguments against gay marriage and LGBT equality. For us and our advocates to turn against that culture now would be a betrayal of the movement's deepest and most humane values."
In addition to RealClearPolitics, the statement is also posted to iPetition, where any individual may affix his or her signature in support of it (see http://bit.ly/1kXFFWW).
To request an interview with one or more of the signatories to "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both," telephone Rick Sincere at 202-903-5555 or email him at email@example.com.
Cliven Bundy has become all things to all people. Some see him as the darling of those who would resist overweening government power and its abuse. Others see him as the victim of a plot to steal his land for the friends of those with political power. Still others see him as a bit of a jerk who has been running cattle on his neighbors' land without permission or paying fair rent, both that of the government and other people's private property. By now both sides have started churning the rumor mill tp where differentiating fact from fiction is all but impossible, let alone determining who is right (and to be honest the mainstream media has worked hard to reach this point.).
Speaking of the mainstream media, this wonderful bunch chose to release comments made by Mr. Bundy butchered to make him sound like a racist jerk. Several "libertarian/conservative 'leaders'" (use of multiple quotation marks carefully considered, these men just proved they are phonies as lib/cons and lack the appropriate hormonal balance and sense of justice to lead) were quick to jump ship on him before the truth came out. What amazes is the need demonstrated by progressives for Mr. Bundy to be racist, or homophobe, or religious fanatic, or some other kind of pariah unworthy of having rights. This tells me more than I ever wanted to know about liberals, they have a need to for somebody to ostracize and marginalize, to create a group of people it's okay to to bully, rob, and murder. Sound like the kind of people who march around in snazzy uniforms with a cool insignia on an armband and saluting a leader.
We are close to a civil and war my friends, and what surprises me is the number of people who want it to happen,who appear unwilling to let people run their own lives or even vote on how to run their lives, but who want to point guns at their neighbors and force the rest of us to be their kind of people. And some of them are people who honestly think they are friends of liberty.
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased