Worth Reading
Jon Roland
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE ============================ June 15, 1999
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act
consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
_not_ libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
=====================================================================
Publisher ................... L. Neil Smith <mailto:ln...@ezlink.com>
Honorary Editor ............... Vin Suprynowicz <mailto:v...@lvrj.com>
Editor ...................... John Taylor <mailto:T...@johntaylor.org>
WebMaster ................. Ken Holder <mailto:kho...@webleyweb.com>
Internet Service Provider ....... Alan Wendt <mailto:al...@ezlink.com>
=====================================================================
ISSUE 48 Flag Day Edition
=====================================================================
EDITOR'S NOTES
by John Taylor<mailto:T...@johntaylor.org>
For what must be the umpteenth time ... a few sad, shabby, shopworn
lessons from the past month or two:
1. "Using a gun in the commission of a felony" is a hollow charge --
the felony itself is the crime (and then if and only if the felony
involves the actual infringement of one individual's rights by
another).
2. "Enforce existing gun laws" is not a pro-gun stance, unless you
agree that the current 20,000 laws are constitutional and proper.
3. A legislator who proposes a "less stringent version" of an
unconstitutional gun control law is not an ally, cannot be trusted,
and is just as much in violation of his oath as the one who proposes
a more onerous gun control law.
4. A gun rights organization that accepts a compromise of individual
liberty -- whether it involves a gun control law or not -- will
betray you sooner or later, and almost certainly already has.
5. Any advocate who tells you that they have a strategy for dealing
with gun control but won't publicly spell it out in detail either
doesn't have a strategy ... or does have one that has already sold
you out.
6. Anyone who tries to work with a legislator who has betrayed you in
the past is either dangerously naive, hopelessly desperate, or is in
the process of betraying you.
7. The "Heinlein Rule" doesn't apply with legislators or gun rights
organizations. In those cases, "once is happenstance, twice is enemy
action". There is no "three strikes" leeway. Anybody can make a
mistake; but there can be _no_ tolerance for those who make the
same mistake again.
8. Anyone who on the one hand asks you to respect individual liberty,
and on the other hand asks you for money _so they can protect your
rights_, either doesn't understand the unbreakable link between
individual liberty and individual accountability ... or hopes that
you don't.
9. Anyone who tells you that you must support one party over another
regardless of that party's actions ...
Anyone who tells you that you must support one candidate over another
because he is not as bad a Constitution-mangler ...
Anyone who tells you that a covert traitor is somehow superior to an
overt traitor ...
Is a fool.
10. Anyone who accepts a "reasonable" amount of infringement of his
liberty is a frog in a simmering pot.
11. Anyone who labels you as an extremist for opposing incremental
infringement of a right doesn't believe in that right at all, doesn't
want you to exercise it, and will lie to you repeatedly about his
true position.
12. Most legislation proposed "for the children" ... isn't.
Furthermore, it is almost always based solely on hysteria, illogic,
and outright falsehood.
13. As long as the bulk of the citizenry believes that government is
in place to do something for them, there will never be any meaningful
reform. Furthermore, government's power will continue to increase at
(at least) geometric rates.
=====================================================================
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
1. THIRTEEN QUESTIONS FOR GEORGE W. BUSH
by L. Neil Smith <mailto:ln...@ezlink.com>
2. A PLEA TO MY MILITARY FRIENDS
by Victor Milan <mailto:vicm...@ix.netcom.com>
3. THE NEW PROVOS
by Andy Barniskis <mailto:ad...@netaxs.com>
4. SWING!
by Casey J. Lartigue Jr. <mailto:c...@cato.org>
5. TO PREVENT A LIFE OF CRIME, BUY YOUR KID A GUN
by Vin Suprynowicz <mailto:Vin_Sup...@lvrj.com>
6. THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, AN ANTI-STATIST MODEL
by Michael R. Allen <mailto:mra...@spintechmag.com>
7. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
by Our Readers
8. THE COMPASSIONATI SPEAK
by Mike Arst <mailto:mi...@halcyon.com>
9. TWENTY TO LIFE
by Jonathan Taylor <mailto:Fenr1...@yahoo.com>
10. ONE STEP AT A TIME
by Bruce Elmore <mailto:whee...@flash.net>
=====================================================================
1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1
THIRTEEN QUESTIONS FOR GEORGE W. BUSH
by L. Neil Smith <mailto:ln...@ezlink.com>
Exclusive to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
In these final moments of the 20th century, when the "Old Media" --
TV, newspapers and magazines, and to some extent, radio -- serve
interests inimical to the people of America, no one can be relied on
to ask real questions of political candidates but the "New Media" --
the internet. Having seen interest rise in the candidacy of Texas
governor George W. Bush, son of the former president, THE LIBERTARIAN
ENTERPRISE presents this list of questions we'd ask him if he weren't
surrounded by thugs and protected by the round-heeled press.
Since Bush is as inaccessible as any politician, we suggest that
readers forward these questions to every Bush supporter they know,
from rank-and-file voters to media personalities. It's our bet that
any answers they extract will only support our contention that there
isn't a nickel's worth of difference between what liberal Democrats
have done to America and what conservative Republicans plan to do.
1. Bill Clinton's presidency has been a disaster from start to
finish, more damaging -- especially to the Constitution and the rule
of law -- than any series of events since the war between the states.
It will take decades to repair this damage, and only then provided
that there's no more done. What will you do to begin the repairs?
2. The only disaster greater than the election of Bill Clinton is the
War on Drugs, which, failing in its publicly stated purpose, has
turned into a full scale war against the Bill of Rights. It has
corrupted government at every level, made billionaires of petty
foreign criminals, turned our inner cities into freefire zones, and
inflicted brutality and death on countless innocent victims. It has
provided a myriad of excuses for treating a once free people like
cattle. Worst of all, it has spread drugs more widely than the
traditional purveyors of drugs ever could. What will you do to end
this war against the American people and their rights?
3. One of the worst things Clinton has done is to involve America in
a bloody and unwinnable war in the forever-warring Balkans, simply to
distract the public and media from his many domestic crimes. What
will you do to end this war, bring American troops home, and
eliminate the power of a president to do such a thing again?
4. Americans have been dismayed to observe, especially since 1994,
that the elected representatives of your Republican Party are, almost
without exception, a collection of cowards, idiots, and
four-flushers, more than willing to sell out Americans and their
rights to stay in office. As its standard-bearer, what will you do to
remedy the pusillanimity, stupidity, and dishonesty of the GOP?
5. The most overblown "crisis" in American history is "Y2K". Although
we now know there are no earth-shattering technical problems in the
offing, the media have done their damnedest to panic the nation over
it. Meanwhile, contractors and consultants have a gold mine as long
as they keep the hysteria going and self-styled experts on survival
are selling books, courses, and supplies by the metric ton to
gullible idiots. But the creatures who expect to extract the most
benefit from this self-inflicted hoax are those in the government who
plan to have the President impose martial law, suspend the Bill of
Rights, shut down the internet, send troops house to house collecting
weapons, and cancel the election of 2000. As your party's leader,
what will you do -- now -- to prevent what amounts to a Clintonian
_coup d'etat_ using Y2k as an excuse?
6. Sometime over the last dozen years, the government declared war on
America. It now routinely steals people's cash if it thinks they're
carrying "too much", takes their cars if they're suspected of
breaking some illegal local statute, smashes into their homes,
destroys their belongings, crushes their pets underfoot, kidnaps
their children, beats people up, and kills them. Ordinary,
law-abiding individuals, seeing less and less difference between the
police and Serbs ravaging Yugoslavia, worry they'll be treated the
same way if they mark the wrong box on some form, make too large a
withdrawal at their banks, exercise their rights too conspicuously,
or speak out against these violations of everything America is
supposed to stand for. What will you do to restore America's peace of
mind, disarm the federal bureaucracy, demilitarize the police, and
bring government back into compliance with decent standards of
conduct and the Constitution?
7. Another thing deeply troubling thoughtful Americans is the use of
the military to enforce domestic -- usually unconstitutional -- laws.
So far, training exercises have terrorized thousands and damaged
property. Use of the military to augment the Border Patrol resulted
in at least one wrongful death. What will you do to end these
dangerous practices, and have American troops thoroughly
indoctrinated in the Bill of Rights so they can't be misused like
this again?
8. The judiciary at all levels is swollen and putrid with judges
ignorant of the law -- and belligerent toward it -- who believe their
authority exceeds that of common law and the Constitution. They
systematically prevent defendants from referring to the Bill of
Rights and viciously suppress the 1000-year-old duty of a jury to
examine the law as well as the facts of a case. What will you do to
rid us of such judges and restore the rule of law to courtrooms
across America?
9. For decades, the productive class has born a burden of taxes four
or five times greater than that of a medieval serf, while local,
state, and federal governments are now hundreds of times the size
they ought to be. If there's any place in the world or any time in
history where people should keep the fruits of their labor it's 21st
century America. Yet it's clear that Americans aren't interested in
"tax reforms" being offered and regard the difference between a
"flat" tax and a national sales tax to be as trivial as the
difference between being shot and hanged. What will you do to reduce
taxes and the size of government significantly, and how do you define
"significantly"?
10. Prohibitionists, environmentalists, health Nazis, feminists, and
other fascist groups have been allowed to drastically alter the
architecture of the republic. What will you do to abolish this habit
of letting the loudest, most sniveling whiner rule the day?
11. In the past 65 years, each time a horrible crime has shocked the
public, politicians, rather than examining the real cause -- usually
something they did themselves -- have used gun owners as scapegoats,
making it harder to exercise Second Amendment rights (in a manner
reminiscent of Jim Crow laws), while pressure groups and media
personalities, (like Klansmen at a lynching), bray support. What will
you do to remove this illegal burden from the backs of America's 70
million gun owners who are fed up with being used as a punching bag?
12. The only value to sovereignty is the protection it offers to the
lives, rights, and property of a nation's people. Since World War
Two, America's sovereignty has been steadily eroded by participation
in various international organizations. Today, Japan and other
members of the United Nations openly plan to abolish the Bill of
Rights and replace it with a document that is nothing less than a
charter for worldwide serfdom. What steps will you take to restore
American sovereignty, remove the US from these organizations, and
these organizations and their vile, thuggish minions from American
soil?
13. Six years ago, in the state where you're governor, agencies of
what is now widely referred to as the "feral government" confined,
tortured, and eventually gassed, machinegunned, and incinerated 82
innocent individuals -- 22 of them helpless children -- illegally
imprisoned the survivors, bulldozed the evidence of their inhuman
crimes, and are still lying about them to the American people. This
deeply wounded nation cannot be healed until there is justice in this
matter. What will you do to identify, arrest, try, and convict every
one of the hundreds of criminals -- including the current President
and Attorney General -- who had a hand in committing this atrocity?
Millions of individuals are waiting to hear your answers to these
questions, that the Old Media refuse to ask. Answer them right and
you could be the greatest president America ever had. Answer them as
any other politico would, you'll be just another Bill Clinton -- or
George Bush.
- - - - - - - - -
L. Neil Smith is the award-winning author of THE PROBABILITY BROACH,
PALLAS, HENRY MARTYN, BRETTA MARTYN, THE MITZVAH (forthcoming, with
Aaron Zelman), and 15 other novels. Order them from Amazon.com via
<http://www.webleyweb.com/lneil/index.html> or from Laissez Faire
Books at <http://www.laissezfaire.org> or just call Laissez Faire
toll free, 1-800-326-0996.
=====================================================================
CORRECTION (of sorts):
"In his last TLE article, Don Tiggre spoke of burying guns before
gun-grabbers can confiscate them. This was not meant to imply that
hiding is better than fighting unjust and unconstitutional laws. What
Mr. Tiggre had in mind was only a temporary tactical retreat at the
moment of attempted confiscation, so that liberty minded individuals
could hold on to their tools for fighting tyranny and use them in a
more effective way than simply waiting at home to be Waco-ed, one by
one. Guerrillas don't dig in and wait to be bombed or overrun -- they
disperse and only engage the enemy at times and places to their own
advantage, if they can at all help it. Now, Mr. Tiggre understands
that not everyone will agree with his notion of tactics (he doesn't
claim to be a military expert), but he hopes readers of THE
LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE will understand that he did _not_ mean to
advocate giving up the fight to be free. He apologizes for any
confusion his poor choice of words may have caused."
- - - - - - - - -
Prometheus Award finalist Y2K: THE MILLENNIUM BUG, a suspenseful
thriller by Don L. Tiggre does "a superb job of conveying the impact
of Y2K to the average non-technical reader," says Ed Yourdon, author
of TIME BOMB 2000. Bob Boardman, author of SAVIOR OF FIRE says:
"I was up all night, tossing and turning, trying to think of the
right words to tell you how great I think your book is." Details at:
<URL:http://www.allwest.net/ralston>
And if you really want to do freedom check out:
<URL:http://www.lrt.org>
=====================================================================
2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2
A PLEA TO MY MILITARY FRIENDS
by Victor Milan <mailto:vicm...@ix.netcom.com>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
An urgent plea to my friends in the military:
Quit.
Now.
Do you want to die for Bill Clinton?
Do you want to die for Madeleine Not-At-Allbright and Christiane
Amanpour?
Do you want to die so some self-proclaimed (or even actual) heroes
from some other war can enjoy photo-ops, smoking and joking with the
REMFs at zero risk while you do all the eating of Serbian mud and
snow and bullets?
Do you want to die so socialist Britain can do nothing much, but
claim credit for everything, the way it did to your fathers and
grandfathers fighting the Reich in WWII? (Friendly reminder to any
members of the Brit Para Regiment who might chance to see this: the
rest of the British Army left your genuinely heroic forebears, the
1st Airborne Division "Red Devils," twisting slowly in the wind at
Arnhem in '44. They'll do as much for you today in Serbia, if you let
Clinton's cocaine companion Tony Blair stick you into it.)
This is not what you signed up for.
This war does nothing to advance our "national security." The
opposite, in fact.
You have been lied to. If we really need you to protect us, if there
are foreign real threats to our lives and liberty, how can your
Commander-in-Chief and his toadies like Cohen and Shelton afford to
devote our entire disposable military might to whaling on pissants
like Saddam and Milosevich? If there was any real outside threat...it
would have eaten us already.
Please ask yourself who the greatest threat to American liberty
actually is. There's only one answer: the government of the United
States.
Please resign. Or just leave with no forwarding address. Refuse your
reserve "commitment." Cut the silver chain. And hide your kids when
the draft man comes looking for them, to send them to knock over the
government of Iceland or prop up the ANC - or to carry out the main
mission "our" government intends for its military in the 21st
Century: the disarmament and subjugation of the American people.
You do not serve your country - nor what it stands for - nor
yourselves, nor the rest of us, by staying in the armed forces. You
only serve politicians evil as any they pretend to oppose, evil as
any who ever existed.
- - - - - - - - -
Prometheus Award-winner Victor Milán is hard at work on an epic novel
of your near future, THE WAR FOR AMERICA. Freedom _can_ win.
KEYWORDS: Kosovo military friends resign quit
=====================================================================
Say, here's an idea for entreprenurial civil disobedience:
"Rent-Adult" ... an "escort service whose clientele is groups of kids
outside theaters looking for a way in to "over-rated" movies.
=====================================================================
3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3
THE NEW 'PROVOS'
by Andy Barniskis <mailto:ad...@netaxs.com>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Near the end of last week I received (and forwarded to many of you) a
very cogent essay that suggested that "NRA" stands for "Not Relevant
Anymore." Reflecting on that over the weekend led me to the
conclusion that, while I agreed with the spirit of the essay, the
real problem is that, regrettably, the NRA _is_ relevant.
Quite simply, the relevance of the NRA is that it is widely
recognized as the entity authorized to sign our agreements of
surrender.
I say it is not. I did not authorize a surrender, you did not
authorize a surrender, and, I doubt even a simple majority of the NRA
board of directors authorized an agreement of surrender. But, what
_we_ say at this moment is unimportant. Our "decommissioning" is
underway, and calling it a non-surrender is merely playing with
words, a face-saving that nobody is going to fall for, and that our
enemies are revelling in.
Because it surrendered, and its surrender is being widely celebrated
by our enemies, in that way the NRA most certainly _is_
relevant.
(Even if you do not agree with me that it already has surrendered, I
think you must agree that politically, it IS the entity that has been
placed in the position enabling it to issue our surrender. In that,
it is relevant!)
My premise is that our job now is to make it irrelevant.
As I have written in several ways in several venues over perhaps
several years, the NRA as viewed by the public is a largely mythical
organization, in several ways. First, it plays the role for American
liberalism that the mythical "Great Zionist Conspiracy" played for
Adolph Hitler and Nazism -- a mythical monolith that lies behind any
and all resistance to the totalitarians coming to power. There is
scarcely a firearms rights initiative in North America, no matter how
spontaneous or independently organized, that is not credited to "the
NRA." About as close to semantic accuracy as we see is credit to "the
gun lobby," though decades of careful crafting have made that
synonymous with "the NRA," so the effect is the same. (Don't babble
in defense of GOA, JPFO, et al, because I can mount a better defense
of them than you can -- the problem is that roughly 200 million
Americans have not been allowed to know they exist, because there was
political value in maintaining the image of a fearsome, singel-minded
monolith.)
The second part of the myth is the continual references by pundits to
the NRA's "radical" and "extremist" policies -- even after, as it did
here in Pennsylvania, the NRA joined arm in arm with HCI in endorsing
"reasonable" anti-gun legislation, or, when it played political
hard-ball to stop major, local pro-gun initiatives such as "Vermont
Carry" legislation in several states. Those instances may have been
testing grounds for the tactics that led to their federal-level
surrender, but that is a subject for another essay. I merely call to
mind that, in Orwell's novel "1984," even the resistance was operated
by Big Brother.
Third -- and this perhaps is a subset of points one and two above --
the NRA for obvious reasons basks (and banks) in these myths, and by
so doing, within the tenuously pro-gun camp of hunters and target
shooters, it remains a credible source of information and opinion on
gun rights and legislation. It filters and spins virtually all
information reaching the trapshooter or birdhunter, so that (for
example) in the fall of the 1995, the adoption of major new gun
control legislation in Pennsylvania earlier that year was presented
to most of its members as one of a list of great "pro-gun victories"
for that year. (The gun control legislation had first been labeled by
them the "Sportsmen's Omnibus Anti-Crime Bill" because, while placing
new restrictions on gun acquisition, use and ownership, it also
imposed strict punishments for violations -- thus becoming
"anti-crime," in the best CrimeStrike NewSpeak.)
If you doubt the fineness of their filter, may I refer you to the
outcomes of the last several NRA board elections? Or the way they
were cheered by the throng for squelching dissent in Philadelphia in
1998?
But, I go on too long flogging dead horses. The bottom line is the
result: The NRA is being recognized in song, verse, and political
cartoon as being variously "defeated", "seeing the light",
"overpowered by public opinion", or "moving toward the mainstream".
It recently published full-page advertisements in major newspapers
declaring "we will not surrender on [certain issues] _unless_ we
are given guarantees ..."
In other words, they signaled surrender, and the Senate accepted that
surrender. The Official NRA line now will supply cover for most of
those Senators (and the Representatives who will vote with them) in
coming elections -- as they have now for at least three decades.
I did not authorize them to surrender. I did not state conditions for
surrender. But how do I -- and the hundreds of thousands like me --
declare our non-surrender?
The little individual symolic acts -- the resignations and switchings
of allegiances to better organizations -- are necessary, but not
sufficient, and can be spun the wrong way by the enemy. Over the
weekend, I heard Schumer claiming that recent NRA member resignations
were because of "dissatisfaction with the NRA's _radical_
positions" (see above). Nor do I propose what you would call,
strictly speaking, "a new organization," since it could not possibly
offer anything more than our existing, excellent, alternative
organizations, and a new organization would spend months floundering
before it achieved anything worthy of press or legislator attention
-- if ever.
What I -- an NRA Life Member -- would like -- _love_ -- to see,
would be the formation of a "Provisional" NRA, formed by at least a
handful of dissidents from the present board of directors declaring
that the "Official" NRA has become unrepresentative of the wishes of
most of its oldest and (in the past) most faithful supporters.
Let me acknowledge that I am aware of all of the legalistic and
bureaucratic problems attached to such an action. The advantage I see
to it would be to capitalize on the years of propagandists'
conditioning that brings immediate attention to what "The NRA" is
doing. Whether the declaration of a "Provisional NRA" was strictly
adherent to corporate bylaws or not, it would immediately get
attention to the fact that a significant body of significant people
_had not_ surrendered.
There also is the advantage that it would lead at least some of the
uninformed NRA members to questioning where their allegiances should
lie -- since, after all, the protagonists would still be identified
as "NRA," to which knees are conditioned to jerk. Admittedly the
Officials would still have an unchallenged upper hand with the
propaganda channels in the house-organ publications, as they do with
the board elections, but a firm and unambiguous pro-gun position,
reported in the mainstream media, might lead people to think for
themselves, about which faction is truest to pro-gun principles.
It also might lead legislators to doubt whether the Official NRA will
have the ability to cover for them in the future, and might take away
the credibility of Official NRA lobbyists' assurances that if they
vote for this tiny, little, reasonable, anti-gun amendment, that they
will be able to smooth it over with the boys. Hopefully, a goodly
percentage of the boys (and girls) will be listening to alternative
opinions, or at least have greater access to them.
Finally, I am aware that I suggest a deliberately provocative and
metaphoric name for my wished-for dissident group. Perhaps some of
our legislators will be led to doubt the boundary conditions of their
playing field, if "Provisional NRA" representatives approached them
to make their more militant wishes known. Instead of the smiles and
winks and drinks from non-ideological, mercenary lobbyists, they will
need to wonder what levels of discomfort the
Provisionals-not-bearing-gifts will be able to muster against them.
For those who recognize my rather obvious metaphor, taken from the
world political situation, let me explain that some time ago I saw a
little lapel pin originating from that source, with the image of a
phoenix taking flight, and the legend, "Up from the ashes. . . rose
the Provisionals!" Recalling that those other Provisionals have some
very hard-nosed and intransigent people representing their political
position at negotiating tables -- coincidentally taking a "no
disarmament position" against a sea of world propaganda -- while we
have _no one_ representing our political position at _any_
negotiating tables, anywhere -- I found the sentiment rather
inspiring.
And damn, do we ever need something to inspire us, right now!
=====================================================================
By now, surely you all know about the brou-ha-ha over Rosie
O'Donnell, and the subsequent informal boycott of K-Mart (have you
shopped WalMart or Target this week)?
What you may not have heard yet is that K-Mart just launched a new ad
campaign for a product so stupid it could only have come from the
inconsistent pea-brains at K-Mart. It's a hose device for your yard
that you can use to water the lawn or entertain the kids. It's in the
form of a cow with a stake that you stick in the ground. The "tail"
is a short length of hose that whips about under water pressure.
And the name of this marketing "hot flash"?
"Hosie Cow". <pause for dramatic effect>
H-m-m-m-m. <pause>
Hosie Cow ... <pause>
Rosie Cow ... <pause>
Coincidence?
We think not!
=====================================================================
4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4-4
SWING!
by Casey J. Lartigue Jr. <mailto:c...@cato.org>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
(This article originally appeared at
<http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-09-99.html>
and is reprinted here with permission -- Ed.)
First, the good news. More than 20,000 people had organ transplants
last year. Now, the bad news. Twice as many, more than 44,000 people,
were still on the waiting list when 1998 ended. And the really tragic
news: more than 4,300 people, an average of 12 per day, died while
waiting for an organ transplant.
Could there be a better means than altruism for organ donation? A
recent proposal from Pennsylvania plans to pay the relatives of organ
donors $300 toward funeral expenses. Such a plan acknowledges,
finally, that altruism isn't enough.
Hearing about that plan brought back memories of a college friend who
was from Pennsylvania. Terri Mullin, a self-described "country girl
from Pennsylvania," was a fantastic reporter at my college newspaper.
But as good as she was, she never had a legitimate shot at an
executive position on the paper. She had cystic fibrosis. The senior
editors were worried because she was often in bad health, missing
days at a time.
Because she acted as if she didn't have the disease, I wasn't
surprised when she asked me if I could teach her how to play
softball. Softball was the sport that everyone on the paper could
play. Everyone, that is, except for Terri.
I really regretted that Terri and I never found a time for softball.
The following autumn, she checked into the hospital for an extended
stay.
Worried that she might be dying, several of us made the trip to the
hospital to see her. Between coughs, she assured us that she would be
back, soon. She later told me that she was happy to see me because I
enjoyed her rants about animal rights groups who opposed medical
testing on animals. She blamed those groups for the deaths of many of
the "invisible victims" of diseases. A former poster child for cystic
fibrosis, Terri had memorized the names of diseases that had been
cured as a result of animal testing.
There she was, sick in the hospital, and she wanted to ... play
softball! She asked me if I would still teach her how to play. I
reluctantly agreed to do so after she got healthy.
She did return a few weeks later, upset because she knew that her
long stay in the hospital had ruined her chances for a top spot on
the paper. She was even more upset because I was hesitant to play
softball with her.
Spring came and it was softball season. Terri seemed to be much
healthier. One day, she just showed up at one of the games, without
even a day of practice. There she was, trying to figure out how to
hold the bat.
Before the game started, she came to me, nervous: "Coach, quick,
teach me how to play." She took a couple of weak practice swings
behind the batting cage. Suddenly, she was up next. She was frantic.
"What should I do?"
"Swing."
She was livid. "That's it? Swing? That's what you call coaching?"
She walked up to the plate. The pitcher tossed the world's slowest
pitch right down the middle. Terri did swing; late, badly. Strike
one. Another pitch, a swing, and contact! If it had been a movie, she
would have hit a home run or a triple. Instead, she hit a weak
dribbler that dropped right in front of home plate.
I had forgotten to teach her one other thing:
"Run!"
Glaring at me and holding the bat the whole way, she lumbered down to
first base. She was halfway there when the ball arrived.
She played in several other games, even getting a "hit" in an
intrasquad game. She had managed to actually hit the ball past the
pitcher and directly to me at shortstop. Although I could have outrun
her to first base, I ended up tossing the ball at least 10 yards over
the first baseman's head. I will never forget the big grin on Terri's
face later as she awkwardly leaned off second, taunting me for making
the error: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, play shortstop."
That is my best memory of my three years of working with her. About
two years later, I happened to see her picture as I was thumbing
through the Boston Globe. It was in the obituary section. Shortly
after she had started working at the Boston Globe, she had taken a
leave of absence. She had died in England, apparently waiting for a
transplant that never came. I can't help thinking that Terri might be
alive today if we didn't rely solely on voluntary organ donations.
There are numerous appeals to get more people to sign up to become
organ donors. Sporting events are held to raise donor awareness.
Celebrities, including Michael Jordan, have acted as spokespeople for
the cause. The U.S. Post Office has issued an "organ donation" stamp
to raise awareness. But the reality is that during Donor Awareness
Week, observed in late April, at least 80 people will die while
waiting for an organ. On National Donor Day, observed on February 13,
another dozen people will die while waiting. Those efforts will
continue to fail as long as we continue to rely on altruism as the
sole motivation for organ donations.
The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 explicitly prohibits the
purchase or sale of internal organs. It is time to repeal that law.
The free market isn't a utopia: The rich may still get the "best"
organs, but an increased supply of organs would benefit everyone.
- - - - - - - - -
Casey J. Lartigue, Jr. is a staff writer at the Cato Institute.
=====================================================================
}From the "Eye Wash Rosie Ever Day" school of philosophy:
ABC's Good Morning America "chat" on White House & "gun violence"
<http://chat.abcnews.go.com/chat/chat.dll?room=abc_Clintonbbs>
"Donna ... at 7:51am ET:
"Every parent,teacher, and the county need to start talking with
children on guns in this world. I am a mother of three great
children, we talk to are every day about guns. We don't owe one
but with having children in the home is not a smart move. Let get
guns ban in this county." [sic, sic, sic]
Now who can argue with that?
=====================================================================
5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5
TO PREVENT A LIFE OF CRIME, BUY YOUR KID A GUN
by Vin Suprynowicz <mailto:Vin_Sup...@lvrj.com>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
It's called propaganda: Simplify your lie down to an easily-recalled
slogan, repeat it often enough, and people will eventually get it
down by heart and accept it as fact.
Take: "The cause of all these school shootings is the too-easy
availability of guns."
Prior to the National Firearms Act of 1933, there was no law to
discourage a veteran of the Great War from keeping a
fully-operational souvenir machine gun in the bedroom closet. There
were few towns in America where the local lads didn't know the
location of at least one such weapon. Yet none was ever used in a
"school shooting."
As late as the 1960s, it was not unusual in rural America for young
boys to carry their .22 rifles to school with them, parking them in
the principal's office until needed for the target matches after
school. At age 49 I am no doddering old-timer, but I can remember
young lads walking the country roads of Ohio and Connecticut after
school with their rifles (or bicycling home with the weapons across
their handlebars), hoping to pick off some predatory bird with the
full encouragement of area farmers. A neighbor might chide you about
watching where your bullets went if you missed, but no one ever
called the police to report "The Jones boy is heading down the road
with his gun; come arrest him!"
When I went away to Eaglebrook School in Massachusetts (yes, "Own a
gun, go to jail" Massachusetts) in 1962 at the age of 12, I took my
rifle. We fired for accuracy at the range on Saturdays. I daresay we
could have snuck them out of the lockers down at the gym for some
mayhem if it ever crossed our minds ... but it never did.
The violent media? Today's TV offers nothing like "The Rifleman" or
"Wanted Dead or Alive," programs of the early 1960s in which Chuck
Connors and Steve McQueen ended every episode by mowing down some
reprobate who had kicked the town dog or insulted Millie down at the
general store, in McQueen's case using a sawed-off Winchester which
it's now a federal felony even to recreate for a museum.
This focus on "the availability of guns" -- ignoring the fact they
were far more accessible only 40 years ago, when you could order a
20mm Lahti anti-tank gun through the mail from an ad in the back of
a comic book -- is intended not only to advance the prior agenda of
those who want a disarmed and enslaved citizenry, but also to
distract us from asking what it is about the mandatory behavior
modification labs (public schools) which creates such rage and
frustration in our incarcerated adolescent males. We don't see these
shoot-em-ups in the private schools, or among home-schoolers.
It also diverts attention from the perfectly relevant question of how
many of these shooters had been on drugs known to affect the
judgment, like Ritalin and Luvox, _prescribed and administered by
their government wardens_.
In the face of all this misdirection, isn't it too bad the government
has never conducted an actual scientific study on how it affects a
child's likelihood of committing crimes if his parents buy him a gun?
Um, actually ... they have.
The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of
Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in
Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, N.Y. Their findings?
-- Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes
(0 percent) while children who get guns illegally are quite likely to
do so (21 percent).
-- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any
kind of street crime (14 percent) than children who have no gun in
the house (24 percent) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so
than children who acquire an illegal gun (74 percent.)
-- Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use banned
drugs (13 percent) than children who get illegal guns (41 percent.)
-- Most strikingly, the study found: "Boys who own legal firearms
have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use (than boys who own
illegal guns) and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners
of guns."
This wouldn't have surprised anyone before the rise of the modern
welfare state. It used to be common knowledge that the best way to
get kids to act "responsibly" was precisely to give them some
"responsibility." Why would we assume a child taught by his parents
to use a gun responsibly wouldn't also be more responsible in his
other behaviors?
"Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a
gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting spree?"
asked the national Libertarian Party in a May 21 news release
detailing these study results. "Buy your youngster a gun."
"Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns than
they are in facts," commented LP national director Steve Dasbach,
himself an Indiana government schoolteacher. But "The evidence is in:
The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is
to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly."
- - - - - - - - - -
Vin Suprynowicz, assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal, is author of the book, "Send in the Waco Killers:
Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998."
=====================================================================
6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6-6
THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT, AN ANTI-STATIST MODEL
by Michael R. Allen <mailto:mra...@spintechmag.com>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Many libertarians and their fellow travelers are tired with organized
politics. The Libertarian Party has not won any federal elections,
and its leadership is not trusted by the hard-line contingent.
Think-tanks dedicated to the free market have not been very forceful
on unpopular issues, and have appeared to approve the careless
half-steps and misfires of the Republican party.
Is it time those who still vote start fresh, with a new political
organization?
One looking for an example of a successful ideological venture that
goes against statism without creating a new formal political
organization need only turn to the contemporary anti-war movement.
This movement has galvanized as the war, er peace-keeping mission, in
Serbia continues, and has attracted not only non-interventionist
libertarians. Notably, leftists of the sort who read the Nation and
many grassroots conservatives have also included themselves in this
movement -- some even opposed the 1991 Gulf War.
This is not the anti-war movement of the 1960's. Vietnam War
protesters do comprise some portion of this new movement;
Antiwar.com's webmaster Eric Garris resisted the draft then. And
left-wingers who still distrust "New Democrat" politics are on board
to some extent. However, many of the draft-dodging, card-burning
radicals of the past are now fully in support of US involvement in
Serbia.
The anti-war movement isn't crankily anti-Clinton (at least not
without good reason), nor is it united behind a single organization.
It is simply a collection of people who agree that bombing a nation's
innocent citizens is immoral. No one has to sign a pledge card to
join this movement, or pay dues, or even tell anyone about their
views.
In brief, the new anti-war movement comprises individuals who agree
on one major issue.
On June 5, rallies against the US-NATO bombings of Serbia were held
around the world. In Washington, DC, thousands of protesters arrived
to march from the Vietnam Memorial to the Pentagon. This was the
largest, most diverse rally against the military state in over
twenty-five years. Speaking to the crowd was the old radical Tom
Hayden, as well as the paleo-conservative editor of Chronicles, Tom
Fleming. Catholic social justice advocates, libertarian
anti-statists, left-wingers, hard-line conservatives, and other
groups were represented there, all united to oppose the war.
Might such a coalition be impressively broad but dangerously shallow?
Of course. This anti-war coalition has only grown rapidly in the last
few months, and has not yet proven its durability. In San Francisco,
the International Action Center socialists are openly hostile to
right-wing partnership. Z Magazine's Michael Alpert is downright
surly in its attitude: "I don't think left opponents of the bombing
have any reason to spend much time ... trying to organize [the
right]."
However, the noninterventionist right has been open to working with
anyone who will reciprocate. Without the support of mainstream
conservative outlets like National Review, noninterventionist
right-wingers have utilized talk radio, the internet, and rallies to
disseminate their message. Help from the left on these projects is
more than welcome, at least to right-oriented outlets with which I am
familiar. Where the IAC and Z disappear, others have stepped in.
The coalition has a strong alternative media presence. It has
organized great rallies. It has even had some of its spirit read into
the Congressional Record by firebrand Representatives Ron Paul
(R-TX), Tom Campbell (R-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA). To accomplish
these worthy goals, no political party was needed -- but more
importantly, strong beliefs were.
As Justin Raimondo wrote in his essay "Defenders of the Republic,"
(featured in The Costs of War), noticeable is "the primacy of
foreign-policy views in determining the ultimate political stance of
a given individual or movement." Allies libertarians win working on
the anti-war front have already questioned the most puissant part of
the federal State: the military empire. Such opponents of empire may
never become pure anti-statists, but will be more radical than those
who merely join political organizations to effect change.
Radicalism is a highly desirable trait in the fight against American
foreign policy; the stakes are high, and restoring the Republic is an
urgent matter. For decades, the American military complex has built
itself up. Presidents have gradually taken all of the legislative
abilities to wage war. Military conscription, though not currently
active, has been used to steal citizens to fight war. Reversing all
of these trends is not something that can be done lightly.
Leftists and cultural conservatives join libertarian anti-statists in
emphatically declaring opposition to the military complex. Their
domestic stands are assorted, but their resolve on military matters
displays an eagerness to at least end the worst aspect of the current
federal State.
The anti-war movement is not a formal organization -- and that is why
it succeeds. It is charged with the importance of its mission, not
the sustenance of its own organization. While the movement is far
from perfect, and has not ended the present war, it has accomplished
more for liberty than any formal political organization.
- - - - - - - - -
Michael R. Allen spends too much time editing SpinTech Magazine
(http://www.spintechmag.com)
=====================================================================
Rosie says: "Self-defense is icky! Guns make noise, secondhand smoke,
and require more intelligence and self-discipline than I'll ever
have! Do what works for me: whenever I hear a burglar, I hide my tiny
little Cretaceous head, with its primitive ganglionic cluster, under
the sofa, and let him think my big fat ass is a bean-bag chair!" --
L. Neil Smith
=====================================================================
7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
by Our Readers
- - - - - - - - -
I thought Id write a message from a British perspective
"Oh no", I can hear you say, "not another Englishman passing comment
on guns.". I can understand that. For years the gun debate on the net
has occasionally been interrupted by voices from another planet -- a
British poster repeating, with suitably incredulous tone, the
following nonsense:
"But it's not the Wild West anymore!"
"That 2nd Amendment was made for the old west, surely its time to
become more civilised like us!"
"Look what happened at Hungerford/Dunblane/Littleton ... how can you
support that!"
"Even our police don't carry guns!"
"We'd all be scared to go outside, there'd be killings all the time!"
Most British people do not understand gun issues. Most British people
have never seen a real gun, except on the hips of Airport security.
Most British people have not held or fired a gun. Most British people
would be nervous and wary around a gun, or anyone with a gun.
Understandable, but no excuse for this most revealing error in logic;
"If you can't get a gun you can't do so much damage. Therefore
banning them reduces damage".
That's the fatal blindness of the average Brit -- a belief that by
reducing the number of legally held guns in circulation criminals and
madmen wont get hold of them. A number of investigative journalists
proved how wrong that was in the wake of the Dunblane murders -- none
dared suggest that gun control is actually victim disarmament. They
showed how guns are regularly smuggled into the UK from Eastern
Europe, how criminal gunsmiths re-activate previously de-activated
guns, how ammunition is made in basement workshops, how legal
shotguns are quickly converted to sawn off shotguns. Prohibition has
never worked, all that has happened is the growth of a criminalised
black market for guns and the disarmament of every law abiding
citizen. When faced with a vicious attacker, especially one with a
gun, an Englishpersons lawful duty is to die as helplessly as the
grouse our Queens husband likes to shoot.
Handguns over .22 calibre have been banned since 1997, guns cannot be
bought for the explicit reason of self-defence. Owning an illegal gun
can land you a 3-year prison sentence, even if you have done nothing
with it. The UK has a legislative history of victim disarmament over
the last 100 years and ended the century with the only logical
conclusion of the first 'innocent' piece of legislation - a ban.
America now stands where the UK did decades ago, and the legislation
in America is coming much thicker and faster than it did in the UK.
Americans may, if fortunate, have a few decades before the ban, but
it is coming -- unless you stop it. Resisting new gun controls is
merely losing slowly; repealing them is the only anti-dote.
In England between 1997 and 1998 (Notifiable Offences, April 97 to
march 98) violence against the person rose 5.1%, life threatening
violence rose 6.3%, homicides rose by 13%. Sexual offences rose by
6.3% and rape by 11.1%. Over the last ten years the number of
robberies have doubled (despite a fall this year). Each statistic is
following a long upward trend. However safe living in Britain is, it
appears to be becoming a little less so every year where violence is
concerned. Today we as individuals are more helpless than ever
before.
It is well known that (with some exceptions) such crimes are rarer in
villages and rural areas. There are many reasons no doubt, such as
the unwillingness of criminals to venture outside the city, such as
close knit communities with effective neighbourhood watch. There may
be another reason, never touched upon in the media. I shall explain
it by way of personal experience. Several years ago I used to be a
financial advisor in a rural area, many clients were farmers and
other country folk. On several occasions I calmly talked finance to a
friendly fellow whilst he diligently cleaned his shotgun. It is well
known that most farmers, and many other rural people, have a shotgun
in the house -- these are the last people in Britain to be 'allowed'
a gun. If I were a burglar then I would have reasoned that burgling
or attacking rural people held the distinct chance that in doing so
I might encounter the business end of a loaded shotgun.
A robber in a free country would reason that attacking anyone
anywhere at anytime held the very high chance that in doing so they
would likely encounter the business end of a handgun, a rifle, a
shotgun or even a machine gun. A madman in a free country would last
as long as it takes for the first gun-carrying citizen to aim and
fire. A dictatorship trying to establish itself in a free country
would find itself facing what any invader of Switzerland would face
-- an armed family in every household.
If the American people lose their liberty then the rest of the world
will follow. You're the last place on earth with a law so clear as
the second amendment. Keep it, please.
Regards
G James
- - - - - - - - -
Neil:
While I have found the appearance of Bubba and Vampira at Columbine
disgusting, (watching them battening on the blood of the deceased and
the living), there is something else that is sickening as well.
Recently, even People's Republic Radio (aka N.P.R.) has had on
several shows several qualified psychologists, and they have had the
nerve to actually look at the behavior of the two shooters. What they
come up with is this: many (perhaps most) of these school shootings
are particularly grandiose suicides. This is not as strange as it may
seem at first. Suicide, as any text on the subject will tell you, is
a very angry act. Most suicides are striking out at the world around
them. Therefore, it is not strange that, in such a situation, they
might decide to take the people they hate most with them. It also
explains their calm self-extinguishment at the end of the shooting.
Suicide, and suicide pacts, are not unknown among adolescents--in
fact, suicide is traditionally one of the more common forms of death
among teenagers.
However, here is the most interesting item. Suicide is very
contageous. This is not a new observation. It is quite common for
suicides, and suicides of a particular type, to occur in clusters.
One of the worst things you can do, if you wish to limit such
suicides, is to publicize them. Tradionally, newspapers keep away
from overpublicising adolescent suicides, because this is a
well-known and well-established risk.
What happens, however, when the Motormouth-in-Chief sees an
opportunity? Clinton's people have psychologists on staff, I am sure.
If not, the Presidential Science Advisor knows the studies, and can
get the necessary experts to try to talk down to Willie long enough
that even he might understand.
However, when it is obvious that they had a contingency plan, ready
to go into action the moment any usable event occurred, to further
push their political agenda -- the destruction of the Bill of Rights
-- and they went to it with the fervor of starving attack dogs, what
happens?
Another shooting at a school, that's what.
Guns are not responsible for shootings, individuals are. And, while
Slick, and the rest of the people who believe in disarming the proles
and turning them into good, law-abiding targets, are morally
responsible, at least in part, for the columbine shootings, they are
_directly_ responsible for the shootings that occurred one month
later in Idaho. The publicity created a "copycat" suicide attempt, as
was easily predictable from well-known prior science. However, what
are a few deaths, here and there, when there is a political agenda to
be pushed? At least, that is clearly Clinton's belief.
However, that is no suprise.
Michael W. Gallagher
- - - - - - - - -
Dear Vin:
I've read the many messages generated by your column on the police
shooting of a man armed with a deadly basketball. Most of those from
policemen sooner or later get around to, "You don't know what it's
like; until you've walked a mile in my jackboots -- er, shoes, shut
up!"
In the early 1970s, I spent three years and about 40 hours a month --
about 1440 hours -- "riding along", usually on swing or graveyard
shift with a friend who happened to be a policeman in my home town.
Day and night in all weather, I did residential and commercial
patrols, bar checks, and responded to burglar alarms, broken doors,
high speed chases, barking dogs, and man-with-a-gun calls. I'd say
that adds up to a little more than a mile in the other guy's shoes,
wouldn't you?
Eventually, I became a full-fledged police reservist with false
arrest insurance and the whole nine yards. In those days, most police
officers were genuinely concerned with the terrible relationship
they'd had with the public since the 60s. They were tired of being
called "pigs". They wanted to be respected and respectable parts of
the community.
The trouble is, that isn't possible when you get to carry a pistol
and a shotgun and nobody else does, and where people have to do what
you tell them or (quite aside from being shot and killed) they get
beaten with a club, sprayed with noxious chemicals, shocked with
electricity, hogtied, kidnapped, and thrown into a huge toilet with a
bunch of animals.
So things got worse instead of better.
I've written a lot about police policy (even a couple of novels) and
I have lots of ideas. I won't go into them now, but I will say that
you are much closer to the truth than your correspondents. The whole
notion of policing needs massive, radical reform. It should start
with a fully armed citizenry practicing Vermont Carry, fully informed
juries practicing their 1000-year-old right and duty to judge the
law, and fully indoctrinated cops who know that their first duty as
"law enforcement officers" is to stringently enforce the Bill of
Rights.
Keep up the good work,
L. Neil Smith
Author, THE PROBABILITY BROACH
- - - - - - - - -
[Dear Vin:]
First, let me thank you for your response to my e-mail to you on
"Send in the Waco Killers".
While I was reading your book, for some reason, I wondered what
definition my dictionary contained for the Second Amendment. I was
shocked and angered to find the following definition, which is a
direct quote from "New Webster's Dictionary and Thesaurus of the
English Language", School, Home and Office Edition, Copyright 1992 by
Lexicon Publications, Inc.:
"Second Amendment (1791) amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of
the Bill of Rights, that protects the right of citizens to maintain a
state militia and to 'keep and bear arms.' State militias are
represented by National Guard units, regulated by state governments.
The right to keep and bear arms does not necessarily apply to
individuals for individual purposes and does not preclude state
regulation of arms."
If you haven't already written something on this type of
mis-information concerning the Second Amendment, I, for one, would
sure like to see you do so.
Regards,
Ray
- - -
Hi, Ray --
That's amazing. And while it's literally true that the Second
Amendment didn't preclude "state" regulation of arms (as opposed to
actions by the federal Congress) ... that changed with ratification
of the 14th Amendment, which specifically bans the several states
from depriving citizens of the rights guaranteed under the federal
bill of rights.
What's more, the specific _purpose_ of the 14th was to stop
white Southern sheriffs from depriving returning black Civil War
veterans of their arms.
Yet the dictionary in question _does_ seem to have been written
after 1868!
-- V.S.
=====================================================================
8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8-8
THE COMPASSIONATI SPEAK
by Mike Arst <mailto:mi...@halcyon.com>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
This from Rick Tomkins' recent e-mail:
"Vin Suprynowicz grew up in a nice Politically Correct Democratic
family, fine folks who taught him that it was wrong to steal or to
hate people for being different from them. He still feels that way."
This is true of me as well--same kind of upbringing (and in an
anti-gun household, at that). My mother was an uncompromising civil
libertarian ... unfortunately, however, she had the short-sightedness
to be virulently anti-gun. I was able to talk her out of voting for
the ghastly initiative 676 here, even so. The "pitch" was that the
cure was worse than the disease, in terms of the law's predation on
civil liberties.
But I wonder what she would think if she were alive now and reading
all of the vilification and demonization of the NRA and of gun owners
in general. She'd probably be cheering.
Freaky stuff happening. No doubt you've read about the Makah whale
hunt, which elicited so much anger from animal-rights people. Last
Sunday, the major Seattle paper carried a double-page spread of
letters to the editor. Most of the responses were unfavorable toward
the Makah.
But in an article elsewhere in that issue, the paper noted that many
of the letters went well beyond merely "unfavorable." The
Compassionati have let this incident give them excuses to vilify the
Makah in graphic terms. I don't recall _ever_ having seen
unfettered racism like this in print within one of our newspapers.
Really vile Indian-as savage stuff has begun appearing. The people
who, a few months ago, were probably thinking of Indians as paragons
of spirituality and harmony -- as one columnist put it, as people
whose fantasy-selves suited the emotional needs of the white person
of the 1990s -- have abandoned their Birkenstocks and bracelets in
favor of steel-toed boots and brass knuckles.
There were some letters in which people expressed outright
_genocidal_ fantasies about the Makah -- their revenge for the
whale-hunt. One guy wondered if he couldn't please buy a license to
hunt Makah Indians. A woman and her daughter wrote in -- asking that
only their first names be used, lest they be "scalped" (I am
_not_ making this up)--saying that "we" ought to be able to take
the Makah's land away from them if the Makah are going to take "our
whales". A man wrote that in response to the whaling, now he feels
hatred for _all_ Indians. Another said that his forefathers
killed a "Redskin" any time they saw one, and he himself would like
to follow in his ancestors' footsteps, too.
We read this stuff with our jaws hitting the floor; we felt ill about
it.
A bunch of the Compassionati in this town attended a candle-light
vigil for the dead whale a couple of days ago; the local news carried
a brief shot of a woman with tears dripping down her face.
(Republican Congressman Jack Metcalf showed up, no doubt hoping to
lick a few votes off the rotting carcass of common sense.)
(When we're done mourning the whale, let's go back to dropping bombs
on Kosovo, Congressman. The relentless forced march of
humanitarianism must not be delayed.)
Some weird widespread feeling of _personal_ victimization seems
to have been projected onto that whale -- and in the aftermath, the
"compassionate" people have, with apparent pride in their higher
consciousness -- and perhaps even with glee -- given themselves leave
to smear shit all over the Makah tribe (which went on a kind of
war-footing in its reservation, due to all the bomb threats and other
death threats).
That this would be happening at a time when the Compassionati are
also gleefully speaking of gun owners and gun-rights supporters as if
we were evil incarnate -- and at a time when Rosie O'Donnell figures
aloud that gun owners should simply be put into prisons -- does not
surprise me.
There is some larger connection in these sudden upwellings of
viciousness from the ranks of The Anointed. It makes me think of the
hysterical enthusiasm among many countries' populations at the time
that their politicians were whipping up excuses to start World War I.
_Why_ this is all occurring so suddenly is perplexing ... and
more than a little frightening.
Methinks the Waco holocaust was just a shot across the bow.
=====================================================================
9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9-9
TWENTY TO LIFE
by Jonathan Taylor <mailto:Fenr1...@yahoo.com>
Exclusive to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Thank goodness that all-important twentieth birthday is coming up, I
was starting to get really, really worried.
Granted, I still can't legally drink or purchase .44 ammunition or
rent a car or other dangerous things like that reserved for real
adults. And, granted, I've been able to vote and drive and smoke
tobacco for quite some time now. But the Government has safely
ushered me through these dark and trying times, and has been the
Lysol to my disease-infested mind.
But at least my heart can slow back down to its sheltered pre-teen
pace, because I will finally be out of the trying teenage times,
where my mind is a veritable breeding ground for images of sex,
drugs, and violence.
I am finally safe from the Great Satan of American media, rescued at
last by the passing years and the careful guidance of my Uncle Sam
from becoming another gunman who blew up his classmates, saved from
the temptation to perform some dastardly deed because Beavis told me
to, ushered toward the light of responsible adulthood and away from
the dark, deep recesses of things like South Park, Oliver Stone, and
Clint Eastwood.
As my president today trotted out yet another child, another poor
innocent victim of American society, a child who nearly fell prey to
an almost certainly bloody and violent video game, I can only thank
fate and the kindly old men up on the hill who took care and watched
over me through the long hard years that led me to be the sterling
upstanding (almost) adult that I am today.
Then again, on second thought and careful reconsideration with my
fragile teenaged mind, piss off. I neither need, nor want, nor asked
for, their protection, not now or ever. I've known the difference
between right and wrong from a very young age - when my parents
taught me - and I've known the difference between fantasy and reality
for a similarly long period of time. And you know what? Watching the
Dirty Dozen didn't have nearly the psychological impact on me as
knowing that I could never buy a Street Sweeper (not that I wanted
one), will probably never own a machinegun no matter how much I want
one and save up my allowance, and can't buy a gun through the mail.
I learned most of these things well after I learned that just because
Tom hits Jerry, doesn't make it OK for me. In between I learned that
I had to go to school because the government said so, no matter how
much I hated it, that I had to drive 55 because it was the law, not
because that was the fastest I could go and still be safe, and that I
had to pay taxes whether I wanted to or not. I learned a whole lot
about right and wrong, and most of the time, the government is wrong.
And I'll be damned if I'm going to let a government that consistently
violates the United States constitution preach morality to me, and
tell me how I need to be protected while my mind is still fragile and
malleable. Hey, I've got an idea! You want to protect me from violent
images? Stop burning and shooting people. You want me not to be an
unwitting tool of a violent and uncaring entertainment industry, and
yet, I should listen to you when you tell me what to do. Is this just
plain hypocrisy or are you worried about the damn competition? And
you know what else? Quit telling me you're doing it for me.
Yeah, I think I definitely like my second thought better than my
first. Belay that thank you, uphold the piss off.
I'm so happy to be turning twenty here soon. At least, after that,
I'll only have to put up with a draconian government; they won't be
doing their rape and pillage act for my benefit anymore.
META: Age, censorship
=====================================================================
10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-10-
ONE STEP AT A TIME
by Bruce Elmore <mailto:whee...@flash.net>
Special to THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
One popular talk radio host speaks of how the "left" hijacked control
of the levers of power in this country. The socialists didn't go for
all their goals in one fell swoop, at least not since that criminal
FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court in the 1930's.
Since then, the tactic has been to go for small victories, in many
different areas, and then build on those victories.
This tactic has been succesfull beyond the wildest dreams of those
who began using it in the first half of this century.
This particular radio talk show personality argues that we in turn
must be satisfied with even the smallest victories as "proof" the "we
are winning". I think this is a dangerously short-sighted view. I
also think that it ignores a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
While there have been some significant victories which
"conservatives" can point to, I believe that even these victories do
little more than enhance the power of Government over the lives of
citizens. In fact, some of the achievements "conservatives" are most
proud of in fact cement the idea that the State is somehow supreme in
individuals lives.
I believe that attempting to regain our liberty "incrementally" is a
pipe dream.
Every "victory" sows the seeds for our own destruction. Each time
"conservatives" win a new protection for individual rights, such as
the Religious Liberties Protection Act, they acknowledge that
Government has any business writing laws about such matters in the
first place. They acknowledge a fundamentally flawed premise.
In the last 5 years since the great "conservative revolution" in the
House of Representatives, they have passed laws which make it illegal
for doctors to accept cash payments for services from senior
citizens. "Conservatives" objected to this, so they settled for
simply disallowing doctors who accept cash payments from senior
citizens from participating in Federal programs for a period of
years.
This was declared a "victory".
I don't remember a single "conservative" arguing that doctors and
patients should be free to contract between themselves for services
entirely without Government interference as a matter of right. Not
one.
On the First Amendment front, things are even worse.
In the guise of "campaign finance reform" new limits on how we or any
group of us can spend our own money in the political arena. New
limits on who can donate what, to whom, and when, are being drafted.
It's kind of funny though. While there will be overall limits on how
much one can donate, there won't be any limit on what your friendly
Incumbent CongressCritter can take.
Now, to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
Since the 1960's, when the War On (some) Drugs began in earnest, we
have become used to the idea that it is alright for the Government to
confiscate property without bothering to charge anyone with any sort
of crime.
Pay for an airline ticket to certain countries with cash ... and you
get to meet some nice people from the Government.
Get named in a "drug" investigation by a "confidential informant" and
you can have your car, your home, and your bank accounts seized. And
if you want them back, all you have to do is sue your own Government.
Most lawyers I know would want fifty thousand dollars or so up front
before they would even walk near one of these cases. It's kind of
tough to come up with that sort of cash without your car or your
home.
The Tenth Amendment says this: "Those powers not specifically
delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the States, and
the People, respectively".
It's short, and to the point. It's also completely ignored by both
Houses of Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch.
There is absolutely no Constitutional authorization for the Federal
Government to be carrying on fully 70% of the activities it currently
engages in.
There is no Constitutional role for the Federal Government to be
involved in Education, caring for the poor, caring for the sick,
paying pensions to the aged or the infirm, regulating stock brokers,
fertilizer manufacturers, transportation workers, or any other
transaction arrived at peaceably between free citizens.
We come now to the 2nd Amendment.
In less than 6 months time, the residents of a Free State in our
Republic have a serious decision to make.
The residents and gun owners in California have to decide whether or
not to comply with a law which on its face is completely
UnConstitutional. The Fascists in California Government have decreed
that all persons who own a particular type of rifle must either sell
their private property to the State at a pre determined price, or
risk confiscation of the weapon and a rather lengthy prison term.
This occurs against the back drop of the Criminal President saying on
National TV with regards to National Gun Registration: "Yea, I would
like to do that."
One of the seminal events of the Revolution our ancestors fought were
the battles of Lexington and Concord. The "colonials" were ordered to
assemble and surrender their "military weapons". When they refused to
do this, the British Army marched to confiscate them. This led to the
"Shot heard around the world".
At the end of this year, the residents of a state supposedley living
under the Constitution have been ordered to surrender military type
weapons or face imprisonment. None of these persons who own these
criminal pieces of metal have been accused of any crime other than
owning a particular type of firearm. And as of Dec 31, 1999 it won't
be illegal. But at the stroke of midnight, they become criminals,
courtesy of their former Republican Governor, Pete Wilson.
I wonder how many California gun owners are planning New Years Eve
Parties, and inviting those of like mind to their homes with these
dreaded and banned weapons. I wonder how many of them will dial 911
on Jan. 1, 2000 and say "Yes Officer, we have 50, or 100, of these
weapons. We will not comply with this law. If you want them, you will
have to take them." Then sit and wait for the consequences.
Just sit and say "No, we will not do this" as often as necessary.
They should say "No" when they are surrounded. They should say "No"
when they are sprayed with water ala Bull Connor. They should say
"No" when they are gassed. They should say "No" when the Waco Killers
break down the doors and begin spraying bullets from their Government
owned machine guns.
Any bunch that did this would be heroes. They would be heroes as
large as Crispus Attucks or Rosa Parks.
Rosa Parks simply refused to comply with an unjust law. And she did
so in a most public way. She also suffered a high price. I wonder if
any California gun owners have the same kind of courage Mrs. Parks
did.
We have taken uncounted small steps towards slavery.
It's time to take one giant step towards Freedom.
=====================================================================
The Libertarian Enterprise is available at
<http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/index.html>
Web edition of TLE courtesy of Ken Holder.
To receive a text version of The Libertarian Enterprise by e-mail
subscription, send an e-mail message to <libent-...@ezlink.com>
In the body of the message, type: "subscribe [your email address]"
E-mail distribution of TLE courtesy of Alan Wendt.
Permission is hereby granted to quote from The Libertarian
Enterprise, provided that the article is printed in full, recognition
is given to the author, and TLE is cited (please mention the issue
number).
You may also forward the text-based e-mail edition of TLE
intact without restriction (but be sure that your intended recipient
will welcome the rather large message in his/her mailbox!)
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, the material
contained herein is distributed for nonprofit educational purposes,
and for other fair use purposes including criticism, comment, news
reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research.
30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-30-
===================================================================
Constitution Society, 1731 Howe Av #370, Sacramento, CA 95825
916/568-1022, 916/450-7941VM Date: 06/19/99 Time: 10:04:54
http://www.constitution.org/ mailto:jon.r...@constitution.org
===================================================================
.