Letters To The Editors
Subject: Re: Plain sense
A friend passed me a copy of your essay, which I found most
interesting. I just wanted to comment on the following paragraph:
> If John Lennon had been carrying an Ithaca Auto and
>Burglar under his coat, the Fab Four would be selling live
>albums of their fifth reunion concert by now.
This would be like saying elephant poachers would be discouraged if
elephants carried guns themselves. John Lennon was a firm believer of
peace, not to say that he was against guns, but his firm beliefs
would have never allowed him to carry a gun. IMHO this speculation
does not belong in your fine piece of writing.
Subject: Re: Libertarian Talk Radio
I just read "They Can't All Be Walter Williams, Part Two", and I have
to let you know about a talk radio show host I'm pretty sure is still
WXYT in Detroit, Michigan used to broadcast Mark Scott, an
objectivist talk radio guy, as late as 1992. I haven't been in
Detroit on a weekday since then, so I'm not sure if he's still
around. Some of what he had to say was kind of loopy ("I don't think
we came from monkeys", in response to a comment about evolution--
which brings to mind the question of where he thinks the human race
*did* come from), but he was a pretty good listen and a welcome rest
from Rush Limbaugh and other statist apologists.
At one point, Mark was kicked off WXYT for "making comments incisive
to riot" or some such "crime". He worked in New York for a while and
Just thought you'd be interested. Hope to see you at AZLP convention
P.S. Pallas is a truly *rocking* read. My best to you and your
Subject: L. NEIL SMITH ON BREAKFAST
To the Editor:
I must take exception to the views stated by the publisher of The
Libertarian Enterprise, L. Neil Smith, on the issue of breakfast.
In particular, I take the strongest exception possible to the
knee-jerk opposition to bacon as a breakfast dish, the sort of
knee-jerk opposition which is so inveterately characteristic of the
knee-jerkingly oppositional anarcho-consumption fringe of the
Smith suggests that bacon may well be a viable meal entry when it
comes to BLT sandwiches--note, a lunch item--but that no sane person
could possibly appreciate bacon first thing in the morning as part of
a breakfast meal. He issues his spattering anathema on bacon as a
pronunciamento only, however, with no argument to back it up. As it
happens, I never eat breakfast any more myself, except in the form of
granola bars, but when I have had breakfast, and when I have had
bacon and eggs for breakfast (scrambled eggs only), I certainly have
had nothing to say against the bacon (as long as well done, crispy)
and eggs (scrambled) as something for me to eat for breakfast.
And how could I--or anyone? What possible argument could there be
against it? I hope that Smith is not going to fall back on the old
bad-for-one's- health-based-on-pumped-up-cholesterol argument, which
he has, rightfully, disdained in other places.
It is clear that in his adamant distaste for bacon Smith commences
with an unreasoning prejudice against all breakfast as such. I don't
want to psychoanalyze him or anything but it seems to me the source
of the animus may be an unconscious recognition that breakfast is the
symbol of the requirement of getting out of bed in the morning, when
perhaps Mr. Smith would like to sleep for another hour or two. Then
willy-nilly he takes this prejudice based on his reluctance to get
out of bed and applies it uniformly and a priori to all possible
constituents whatever of any breakfast dish. And thus roundly
claims--with no evidence of course at his behest--that no possible
alternative constituent could be edible by anyone at that time in the
morning (the time when he would rather have not had to get out of
bed). Is this fair or just, either to any particular breakfast item
or to the meal of breakfast overall?
It's far too much effort for Smith, apparently, to prepare a
breakfast when he would much rather continue slumbering. As if it
were the most arduous task in the world to toss a couple strips of
bacon on the pan and scramble a couple eggs. Well, if that's the
case, why not just prepare the breakfast the night before and stick
it in the microwave the following morning? Would that not be more
seemly than endeavoring to transmute a venial laziness into
Philistine virtue via the fool's gold of shoddy and incontinent
I pass over in silence Mr. Smith's ludicrous assault on boxed
cereal--which, of course, requires very little effort and ingenuity
to pour into a bowl even for one of the vast intellectual resources
of L. Neil Smith. Before any one of your subscribers rushes in to
bolster His Smithiness in his sweeping anti-cerealism here, pray let
me just point out a few empirical facts of existence: such as Lucky
Charms, such as Peanut Butter Captain Crunch, such as Rice Chex, such
as Special K--all and each of them tasty and convenient cereals,
especially when plentifully heaped with sugar. Nonetheless anathema
to Mr. Smith, though, right? I'm not persuaded. Or are we to believe
that Smith pours salt onto his cereal?
Then again, maybe he does.
David M. Brown
Libertarian Enterprise publisher replies, "Shut up and eat your
granola bar, Dave."
From: Chris Goodwin
Subject: Libertarian Enterprise Feb 1 -- 60k
To the Editor:
I myself may get crucified for this, but I thought I'd take issue
with some of John Taylor's statements in the 2/2/97 issue of The
Libertarian Enterprise. Mr. Taylor's gist seemed to be that, the
Second Amendment being important to individual liberty, the rights of
private property owners (specifically, business owners) should be
ignored for its sake (specifically, their right to not allow firearms
onto their property).
Mr. Taylor states that "If we truly believe that an individual
business owner may impose any requirement he desires on those who
work at or patronize his business, based on the doctrine of
sovereignty of private property, then what do we do when he refuses
to hire or serve someone on the basis of skin color?" It may seem a
bit ironic, but I know of several libertarian types (myself included)
who would defend a business owner's right to hire (or not) whom he
pleases in his business, or to deal with those whom he chooses --
regardless of race, religion, choice of friends, etc.
Mr. Taylor, our rights stem from our *property* rights, including
first and foremost the right to own ourselves. Among these is our
right to decide who should and shouldn't be allowed on our property,
whether this be a private home or a business.
I consider myself a Second Amendment absolutist, for the record. I
believe that all people -- men, women, and responsible children of
any age -- should be allowed to carry whatever weapons they feel
necessary in order to defend their lives, their rights, and their
property (to quote someone whom I respect, "No order to it...just
three ways of sayin' the same thing."). I'm also a private property
absolutist, and a free expression absolutist.
I simply choose not to deal with those whose business policies I
disagree with, whether this be choice of personnel or allowing (or
not allowing) weapons on the premises. I don't need the government to
make either of those choices for me, thank you very much.
From: Jim Ray
Subject: What to call the Slick one
In your fine article on the Lippo Administration jerk, you make the
> Through it all, no measure of culpability seems
>to have touched him. They used to call Ronnie Raygun
>the "Teflon President". So what do you call this guy?
>Well, a homely old highschool expression about "slicker
>than snot on a doorknob" comes to mind. Remember that,
>next time you hear the phrase, "Slick Willie".
I have long said that the best characterization for the asshole is
"Buckminsterfullerine Bill." ("Buckyball Bill" for short.) A
Buckyball is the world's slickest substance, supposedly. :-)
> The undeniable fact is, if the Mena Marxist were
>invalided off the job, we'd all be immeasurably better
>off. Which led me to (what I'll pretend was) an even
.more startling thought: I challenge the sane portion
>of my readership (the office-holders and socialists who
>call themselves "liberals" that we're spamming don't
>count) to name any politician whom we wouldn't
>be better off without.
Well, I agree with the challenge, but think about it ... President
Gore??? He is a threat dead or alive (nobody can be sure which he is,
anyway). The "reasonable" alternative to Gephardt(!) will mean the
death of this nation if he inherits the office by election or
heart-attack. I envy Dave Barry and other comics for the material
they will be fed soon.
Regards, Jim Ray
From: Douglas Heard
I have a complaint.
I find that ya'll (that's southern for everyone in the general area
of there) are no better at things than I am. I want to know how I
can make idols of you if you can do things only as well as I do.
Starting about the 13th or the 28th I start looking for the new issue
of Libertarian Enterprise. Ya'll seem to refuse to go along with the
standard publishing idea of releasing the June issue in March. In
fact often you are a few days late.
This morning (3/18/97 6:00am EDT) I checked again. There you were.
But by 6:40 I had read the whole issue and now I am waiting for a new
Sure would like the issues to be longer and have more articles.
Keep it up.
S. Douglas Heard
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Sorry Doug, I'm late again...]
[WEBMASTER'S NOTE: I do try hard to get it webified and
installed on the server the same day I get it. I'm just glad
it's not a daily :-) ]