L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 97, November 6, 2000
Bush Defeats Gore!
From: "Rachael A. Ludwick" <raludwic@U.Arizona.EDU>
I live in Tucson and I'll vote for L. Neil Smith. Even if he can't win (obviously), I suppose it's better than leaving the president spot blank. I don't generally vote for any of the offices because I never care who is going to get it (well sometimes I prefer that some people don't get it). But here you've got to vote to get stupid propositions voted down. ...
<< What will it take to convince people that the Feds are a real threat to their liberties? How much damage must they do before they are exposed and stopped? >>
The question is: what would it take to dissolve the federal government as a legal entity? I think we need to because of all the treaties we're entangled in.
From: "Scott Cattanach" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Why I’m Voting for Nader: The real libertarian in the race.
By Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute
... The choice between Bush and Gore is the choice between growing the government medium-fast versus very-fast.
... Ralph Nader's Green party is on the cusp of getting 5 percent of the popular vote, and thus qualifying for federal campaign funds. (Which shouldn't even exist, but that's another story.) ... With federal funding, the Greens can become an important long-term influence in the political process.
... But there are two important issues in which the Greens are starkly different in principle — not just in degree — from the Republocrats. The first of these is corporate welfare, ... Get rid of corporate welfare, and you'll find a lot more corporations willing to stand up for liberty.
... Nader also differs dramatically from Gore and Bush in his forthright opposition to the failed drug war.
... If you're for limited government, think about almost any topic on which Ralph Nader is wrong (there are lots of them), and you'll see that his differences with Gore/Bush are usually only a matter of degree.
[Another excerpt, same article: "... [Harry] Browne has turned the national Libertarian party into a feeding trough for his consultants, and he has ripped off Libertarian party donors with direct-mail advertisements making patently absurd promises of imminent electoral success. The LP needs to get rid of Harry Browne; to vote for him is only to encourage Browne's crowd to maintain their chokehold on the national party."ed.]
From: "Versetto,Dominick A.(NXI)" <Dominick.Versetto@cna.com>
In Issue #96 Jack Jerome said:
>Companies have sneakily decided that businesses (particularly
Let's not ignore the rights of the owners of private businesses! Business owners have a right to self-determination too. If they decide that their property is a "Gun-Free Zone", then it is. You may not agree with their policy, but you don't have to shop there. Neither are they forcing you to work there.
Dominick A. Versetto
From: "JACK JEROME" <email@example.com>
How about that pre-election rhetoric? Looks like the republicrat's knight in shining armour is, after all, just a man. Guilty of a victimless crime. He drove a car while drunk, a heinous offense nowadays.
Let's turn on the wayback machine to 24 years ago, to put this in context. Back in those days gas was outrageously priced at 75 cents a gallon, an average car could be had for 3,500 dollars, and network T.V. shows were replete with alcohol consumption. Heck, back then, everybody on T.V. was drinking AND driving. Drunks were comic relief, and I defy anyone to find an episode of Bewitched that DIDN'T have alcohol in it.
Anyway, DWI as we know it today didn't exist. The only way you got locked up for it was if you took a swing at a cop. Mr Bush very meekly paid his fine of 150 dollars to the Maine constabulary, and drove home.
Who could imagine the tempest in a teapot that act has created today? I hate to stand up for this guy, but this is truly petty nonsense to bring up at this time.
My dad used to say that you should consider the source for information. The source is, apparently the Democrats that didn't have any trouble with Billy-Bob and his "Depends on what your definition of "is" is." remark. What a load of bollocks! Seems like a heck of a time for the party of the jackass to get the religion, isn't it?
Tony Snow, of the Fox News Channel asked the Mr. Connally (source of the court paperwork) some pretty probing questions. The jist of which, was that he felt the American people deserved all the facts. Five days before the election...hmmm. The release of information was planned for much earlier, but no one would take him seriously ... hmmm. This is the same peckerhead that runs the "weenieboy" website dedicated to slandering Mr. Bush. He seems like a real reputable source to me ... Weenieboy ... hmmm.
As a Libertarian, I feel that if somebody wants to get drunk, wacked out, whatever, it's fine with me as long as his or her negligence doesn't get anyone hurt or killed. If something like that does happen, then justice should be served in heaping bowlfulls, the devil take the hindmost. This is a classic victimless crime. Bush has publicly stated that he had problems with alcohol, so this is really no big newsflash whatsoever. Somebody let me know if I'm underreacting, now.