T
H
E

L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N

E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E


I
s
s
u
e

48


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 48, June 15, 1999

One Step At A Time

by Bruce Elmore
wheelnut@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.


Previous to return to the previous article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 48, June 15, 1999.