THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 794, October 26, 2014
Governments on this planet are operated solely
by the most evil, stupid, and insane among us,
That's the final sad result, the last, ironic
reward, of democracy, plain and simple.
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
One question about your zombie extermination articles in TLE today:
How do you recommend dealing with the biannual zombie infestation in Chicago on the first Tuesday in November?
Many thanks for many good articles,
To which Mr. Osborn replied:
Well, first off, since Chicago IS infested with zombies ALL the time, AND the government of Chicago ALWAYS stiffs you if you call, I avoid Chicago most of the time (in fact, I only go when it's a private contract). HOWEVER, I have found that baiting the zombies to a large, open field ( I usually use forged welfare checks—it does seem to attract Chicago zombies quite nicely), then using a series of motion-activated miniguns on auto-traverse chops them up. After that, all one has to do is napalm the squiggly bits until they all stop moving.
Otherwise, I'd use a low-yield tactical nuke—after all, who really needs Chicago ennyhoo?
Tea Party In Space
Re: "The High Frontier: My Cup of Tea" by Jeff Fullerton
There is a Tea Party organization that is focused on promoting a better national space policy than the "Crash Model" that NASA used to fulfill JFK's vision of putting a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth. Which essentially crashed in the post Apollo era of malaise and has never gotten beyond low Earth orbit since.
It's probably a waste of time trying to change NASA which has developed a culture that is for the most part hostile to the idea of human colonization of space. But we can certainly use whistle blowers to expose efforts aimed at shutting private enterprise out of space—or treaties that give away the solar system to our enemies.
It was tried before and the current administration might try to pull
Re: "Rights" by Tyrone Johnson
Try this definition: people are not born with rights. People are born with freedoms and powers they need to survive. When we try to live together without committing injustices to each other we are forced to formally or informally created a socially contract. We retain these liberties and powers and as part of the "contract" agree to not deny each other these "immunities and privileges" and to exercise them in a way that does not violate the other persons. Our freedoms and powers thus become rights in the sense that we are contractually obliged to respect each others rights.
Rights can thus be defined as essential human liberties and powers that the owner can or should be able to properly claim are protected and/or enforceable by law.
Either that or we go to the theist interpretation in which God said: These are my people, these are their rights. Don't fuck with them. As a believer I prefer the second definition, but I am trying to develop a legalistic definition of rights that suits even "free thinkers."
Hope you find this useful.
My thanks to Albert Perez and to Paul Koning for not only reading my essay but thinking enough of what I wrote to send me messages about my stuff. Thanks guys!
With particular regard to Albert's very fine letter, I do not think that I have ever seen, let alone been informed about, or signed, a "social contract." I'm very sceptical about the idea that I have entered into an agreement with "society" or with other people, whose names I don't know, whose intentions I cannot be certain about, the terms of which agreement seem to shimmer and dance through a vast haze of confusion, and the obligations I'm supposedly signed up to meet always seem to increase upon me, while fading into oblivion for those in power. I have no issue with respecting the rights, immunities, privileges, and powers of other people consistent with the exercise of my own freedom. But, of course, the gang that attempts to hold power over me doesn't seem to share that ideal.
Albert wrote, in part, "God said: These are my people, these are their rights. Don't fuck with them."
I can't say enough good things about the idea that God not only wants rights respected but would say it just that way. I'm still smiling.
As to Paul's thoughts on US v Cruikshank, a supreme court opinion issued in 1876, I do agree that the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on the constitution for its existence. Evidently, however, states did not protect the rights of individuals, including freed slaves, to speak, to keep and bear arms, or to vote. Cruikshank is a horrible decision in line with the Jim Crow mentality then commonplace.
Happily, both DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago indicate that the supreme court found the ruling in Cruikshank to be of limited usefulness. Unhappily, people who would otherwise be regarded as fairly interested in promoting the ideals of individual liberty, such as Naomi Wolf, write things like her 2008 comment in her book Give Me Liberty in which she says, "...no one is sure what the Second Amendment means right now, since D.C. v. Heller, decided by the Supreme Court, gave private gun owners new rights..." which seems, to me, to be completely wrong. The supreme court cannot give "new rights" to anyone, and never has. At best it has, at times, made some effort to recognise the existence of certain rights and to indicate that federal or state laws infringing on those rights are not valid.
In fact, I am quite sure what the second amendment actually means: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It shall not be infringed by the federal government, per Cruikshank and Heller, and it shall not be infringed by the state governments, per McDonald v Chicago. Of course, in reality, our freedom to actually keep and bear arms is constantly being infringed, by tens of thousands of gun laws, by taxes, and by enforcement agencies that see private gun ownership as a challenge to the authority of the new "god" of modern times: the state in all its corruption. I find it fascinating that the supreme court is taking seriously the idea that the exercise of the voting right should not be subject to even a indirect "poll tax" such as a requirement to obtain a state-issued identity document. That court has long held that taxing newspapers violates the first amendment. Perhaps it is time to overturn US v Miller (1939) and realise that taxing the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily an infringement of that right.
What most excited me about the latest issue of The Libertarian Enterprise was to see L. Neil Smith coming out with a new essay. Best wishes for good health to him and for his continued recovery.
The word tyrannophobia refers to an irrational fear of the appearance of tyranny. Not to actual tyranny, but to the appearance of tyranny. It is with this definition in mind that I suggest the following addition to the English language, kindynophobia: the irrational fear of the appearance of danger. (From Greek: fóvo tou kindýnou, literally fear of danger).
It is kindyphobia that victim disarmers appeal to when they make a fuss about people engaging in open carry of firearms, saying you never know which one of those armed people might carry out the next mass killing. It is to tyrannophobia that victim disarmers appeal when they compare honest people going about their everyday armed to members of the KKK terrorizing people of color and members of the Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel. Never mind that disarming honest folk makes us all vulnerable to mass killers and the terrorist arms of political parties (the KKK was the terrorist arm of the post Civil War "establishment" acting in support of the Democratic Party).
It is kindyphobia along with bigotry that led to the banning of switchblade knives. This action was pushed by the mass media of the mid Twentieth Century. Switchblades, especially in the hand of black and brown JD's, look scary, especially in an era when people people were both more and more openly racist. If there is one thing media does real good is describe (pre television) or show how scary something can look.
It's so much easier to make an AR15 series rifle or AK series rifle look scary.
One should seek to avoid unnecessary danger. And danger does cause us to experience fear. It is foolish to be ruled by our fears. But it is stupid and crazy to let ourselves be ruled by the illusion of fear. And it is monstrous to to seek to rule people with this illusion,
Re: "A Matter of Princely Pull" by L. Neil Smith
And let me add to Neil's essay about Feudal Lord Bloomberg from last week:
The problem with "illegal immigration" as currently constituted (excepting, of course, the favoritism and preferential treatment relative to "legal" immigrants and sometimes citizens, and the crime, illness, and risk of terrorism crossing the border with the "people who just want to work") is the high percentage of US tax dollars/deficit spending and borrowing which goes to pay their "entitlements."
Be it hereby resolved that any corporation, and any significant managers/shareholders of such corporations, who favor either hiring illegals or promoting "immigration reform" to create a pool of workers at less than prevailing wages, should pay extra taxes in proportion to the demand by such workers (and their underpaid citizen employees) for welfare, food stamps, health care/health care subsidies, and other excessive taxpayer-paid services.
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased