L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 107, February 5, 2001
FOOD AND DRUG
From: "Alobar Greywalker" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
TLE is arriving here with no problems. No all caps or other strangeness. Is the defective TLE arriving as HTML mail or regular ASCII?
>From: "Curtis Handsaker"
Sounds good to me. I always felt it was both wrong & unconstitutional to deprive anyone of their Bill of Rights. Felons who have served their time should be allowed to vote & own guns. I have long felt that many people have been sentenced to prison specifically to deprive them of their right to vote. If any minority can be limited in their ability to vote, they become less of a *problem* for the status quo. Change is impeded & resentments build.
Likewise with the right to bear arms. How many ex-cons live in less than desirable neighborhoods due to economic necessity? Depriving them of their right to protect themselves makes them easy targets. Not fair & not smart.
From: "Curt Howland" <email@example.com>
"all caps type face"
no, mine arrives in standard format.
however, it DOES arrive as a "MIME" file, not as simple ascii text email, which is annoying. maybe those who are seeing it as all caps are having problems with the un-necessary MIME encapsulation too.
it took me a long time to be able to bypass the font setting to view TLE in my unix mail reader after it started being sent in MIME.
[But ... but ... if you use Outlook Express, it's MIME or UUENCODE -- and that ain't gonna' happen. Besides, MIME is the unofficial standard. -- ed.]
A rather dreary TLE, but I have a suggestion about Ben and Sylvia Olson's UPPERCASE TEXT problem.
When TLE exceeds 48Kb in length, email handler routines break it off into a text file. (See below)
Since these handler programs are unique to each email service, it's probably an error in setup at the Olson's email server, ncn.net, which results in the attached text file to be stored in UPPER CASE.
Usually, you can contact the email server company to correct the problem with firstname.lastname@example.org or sysop@ ncn.net and advise them of the configuration problem.
[Only the first part of this message is displayed. The entire message has been turned into a text attachment, which you can retrieve by selecting Download. Once downloaded, open it with a word processor or text editor for reading.]
From: "Michael Curry" <email@example.com>
Regarding the email from Ben and Sylvia Olson, on all-caps type face:
I used to have problems (though not the same as the above) with character sets in TLE emails. The fonts would be screwed up and sometimes unreadable. In order to solve the problem, I had to configure my email reader (earlier versions of Outlook Express 5.x) to override the email's character encodings, and use my preferred settings. This is done under Tools/Options/Read/International Settings, tweaking the "Use Default Encodings" checkbox as appropriate. This forces Outlook Express to override the settings used in displaying the incoming message. Other email readers (such as Eudora) may require other tweaks. It would be useful to know what email readers (including versions) are in use by those experiencing problems.
I think the culprit is the program you use to create the email (apparently outlook express); it inserts the following in the header of the outgoing message:
I found this by saving the email as a file (.eml) then editing it with notepad or some other text editor, and removing various headers until the problem disappeared. I think the charset="..." is the culprit -- it's specifying a character set that may not be installed on some reader's systems (windows 95/98 systems?) and the system is trying to remap the character set (font) to something that is a close match on the system. That mapping may cause the system to use a font that is an all-caps font or other decorative font.
On my current version of Outlook Express (5.5x running on Windows 2000), this doesn't seem to cause any problem, but on other, older versions on NT4 and Win98, it has caused font problems.
I'm not sure that this is responsible for the problems in the above mentioned complaint, but it was for me.
Hope this helps.
[The font is Courier; the character set (encoding) is "User defined" with Courier set for both proportional and non-proportional fonts -- all just to avoid this problem. -- ed.]
From: "Roy J. Tellason" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
In issue 106, I see:
>[Does anyone else receive TLE looking this way?
Not here! About the worst I've ever seen is occasional characters that appear in TLE as an equal sign followed by a couple of hex digits -- typical is the accented character that I guess is being used in "Victor Milan"'s last name? Sometimes there are more of them than one or two, and I get to fix it. If I knew what software was doing this, perhaps I could come up with some idea of how to fix it.
>It certainly doesn't go out in such format, nor for that matter does
The key to this would seem to rest in the software platform that is being run by the people who are seeing this phenomenon. Some particular variety of windoze? Some particular program on that platform? Perhaps a query of those who have reported seeing this would shed some light on it.
For whatever it's worth, I'm reading TLE and writing this email on a dos based system, running Desqview as a multitasker, so that my BBS can still be up in the background. I also have w9x, OS/2, and Linux machines here.
Dunno what else I can offer to help with this, but...
From: "Jim Healy" <email@example.com>
In reference to Susan Olson's email in TLE 106, the typeface looks fine to me.
From: "mwglaw" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To The Editor:
Re Vin Suprynowicz's latest article ( "The Hypocrisy of the Morally Anointed", TLE 106, January 29, 2001); while I agree with the general tenor of the article, (as well as much of what Vin writes, in general), there is a comment I must respond to. Vin writes of the villification of "libertarian-leaning Justice Clarence Thomas...". Sir: have you read any of this man's work? Libertarian leaning? Clarence Thomas (aka Justice Scallia's xerox machine) has shown that he has little or no use for far too many human liberties. He, along with Scallia, would like all too much to do away with such limits on governmental power as the decisions in Mapp v. Ohio, (reasonableness of search and seizure -- warrant requirement and exclusionary rule), Miranda v. Arizona, (right to remain silent during questioning), Roe v. Wade (constitutional right of privacy, and striking down of religiously-based abortion laws), and a host of other cases. He has shown no inclination to agree with any of the constitutional privacy law, particularly when their breach is for a "conservative", (i.e., right wing), cause, like the "war on drugs".
However, I do agree that the hearing on his confirmation was a disaster. Instead of concentrating on things of actual importance, (his belief in constitutional protections, his failure to recuse himself, as an appellate judge, from a case where he had a financial interest, etc.), we were treated to a show trial on the laughable Anita Hill allegations. This had the combined effect of making sure that the leftist senators could put on a nice show for their constituents, in front of the cameras, (thus helping to insure their re-election), and allowing a man who was extremely unqualified (in my humble opinion) a seat on the Supreme Court. Everybody wins -- in Washington. Of course, the rest of us lost, as usual.
From: "Nick Ranieri" <email@example.com>
If Libertarians want a chance to really make a difference, perhaps it is time to get serious. Perhaps we should try appealing to those who would benefit the most from changing the rules on those who are hurting us the most now. The first link below should be a wake-up call. Lawyers are truly sucking the life out of this country. If we cannot convince corporate america to help us in our cause, our cause is futile.
The second link below is a New York Times report about a recent Federal Reserve of New York publication. Which, in a nutshell, called the "Birth of the Information Age" as Q1 1984. This is the date when Information Technology provided the means to remove much of the volatility from the US economy. Instantaneous access to information from around the globe has allowed much greater market efficiencies, these forces had a pronounced effect that can be easily identified on Chart 1 in the Fed report (the third link below).
Silicon Valley is a hotbed of entrepreneurs and, supposedly, Libertarians. Perhaps we should be going there for talent as well. I'm not saying "Bill Gates for President," but I think you get the idea. The Information Age deserves a goverment that will make the most of progress by getting out of the way and letting it happen. It is in the interest of business to serve the people's best interests. When we are free, they will be too.
The Wall Street Journal has shown signs of realising this as well. A number of editorials recently have had a sort of "dare to dream" Libertarian message.
From: "Harry Browne" <HarryBrowne@Home.com>
Dear Mr. Taylor:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter to The Libertarian Enterprise regarding my positions on gun laws.
>I challenge you, Mr. Browne, to answer those questions in a straight forward manner, truthfully, and completely.<
I hope you will find these answers to be straightforward, truthful, and complete. If not, please let me know.
>Point number one:
http://www.lp.org/issues/campplat/ -- Under the
heading "The Platform of the Libertarian Harry Browne for President
Campaign", the following statement is made. "Democrats want even more
gun laws. Republicans want tougher enforcement of the existing gun
laws. But the gun laws are bad laws - every one of them. In the
presidential race, only Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate,
wants to repeal all these harmful laws -- so you'll no longer be at a
disadvantage to criminals."
Yes, with no exceptions. Even ex-convicts should be allowed to purchase guns. If someone was guilty and "paid his debt to society," he is now entitled to be a full citizen -- to purchase food, clothing, housing, and other implements of living, including the means to defend himself from those who would do him harm. He should no more be condemned to live defenselessly than he should be condemned to starvation.
>If so, why did you support the removal of the children's rights plank from the party platform in 1996? If not, how would you propose to enforce an age limit on weapons purchases without leaving in place an existing law?<
I have not been involved on either side of any dispute over the children's rights plank. At the 1996 convention, I was far too busy lobbying for votes to get involved in platform disputes. Frankly, I have never studied that issue (as far as the platform is concerned), and so even now I'm not prepared to offer a wholehearted opinion one way or the other.
As to children owning guns, I do not believe minimum age requirements achieve anything. Children acquire guns today -- despite the law. In the days before there gun laws and drug laws, children frequently handled guns -- safely and responsibly.
I have been criticized by libertarians for emphasizing the point that "government doesn't work." But I believe it's very important that people come to realize that all the good intentions and grand ideas mean nothing if government is the agency that is to implement them. Government laws and agencies and regulations and resolutions simply don't achieve the results that are promised for them. And every day we spend trying to get government to do what we want to see happen is a day wasted -- a day that could have been spent doing something constructive outside of government.
>If that purchaser did want to carry that weapon, would you require him or her to acquire some sort of permit or ID?<
>Under the LP platform (on the web at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html), adopted in convention, 1998 Washington D.C : "We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing." (As an aside -- does that include drivers licenses to operate a motor vehicle? Licenses to obtain commercially available demolitions material? Dangerous chemicals?)<
I believe that whoever controls a road should have the power to enforce rules for driving on that road -- which necessarily would require some sort of membership i.d. -- a.k.a a driver's license. I would like all roads to be privately owned, but that isn't an issue I'm going to make a big noise about now -- since there are many more compelling issues (just as libertarian) that are easier for people to understand and support. (However, I was asked about private roads a number of times during the last campaign, and I asserted emphatically that private road owners would never tolerate the loss of revenue that traffic jams cause.)
As to demolition materials and chemicals, this is like the "Would you want your neighbor building a nuclear bomb in his basement?" argument. If my neighbor is going to build a nuclear bomb (or fool around with demolition materials or deadly chemicals) in his basement or anywhere else, he isn't likely to make that known to me or to the police -- whether these things are legal or illegal. Making them illegal is similar to making drugs illegal: it gives the puritans the opportunity to feel that they've done something constructive, when in fact they've done nothing to make us safer.
>Does that statement accurately reflect your position on concealed carry -- that you oppose any form of government identification, certification, or permit in order for any United States Citizen to carry any concealed weapon they wish?<
I do not believe anyone should be required to apply to the government for permission or authority to acquire the means to defend himself -- whether the means involve guns, knives, or anything else. And, just so no one thinks I'm splitting hairs, he doesn't have to assert that he's doing this for "defense." His motives are his own business.
My positions on all these matters are summed up in a statement I made frequently during the 2000 campaign:
"You should never be prosecuted for what you own, for what you believe, for what you think, or for what you put in your own body. You should be prosecuted only for the harm you do to others. And if you do harm others, you should be prosecuted -- whether or not you use a gun, whether or not you're high on alcohol or drugs, and whatever your motive happened to be."
I hope I have answered your questions straightforwardly and completely. I know I've answered them truthfully.
With best wishes,
From: "JACK JEROME" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi J C,
Just wanted to send a short note about the past couple of issues of TLE, and ask your readers why, in the name of Jesus Christ who died for your sins, can't we move on already! Harry Browne was great copy for a few months, but we have more important issues (in my opinion) to deal with. The new politicos are moving into the District, and with them come all the legislative promises made during the campaign. Let's talk about that for a while.
Laws are rolling in against all sorts of silly stuff. How about a county ordinance against sleeping in any room of your house, except the bedroom? It's happening now in Fairfax County, Virginia. How about a law against smoking in public streets? It's happening in Friendship Heights, Maryland. A law against talking on cell phones in your car? Yep, got one of those, too. Possible government funding of churches is on the horizon as well.
My point, poorly worded, is the nature of our party IS to disagree with each other. Especially our leaders, whoever they are. To be vigilant about hypocricy is one thing, but we're beating this rented mule to death. The nature of our party is to also fight for liberty. We can't do that if we constantly fight among ourselves. So ya'll read the papers, watch T.V., inform yourselves somehow, and look at what these public servants are doing to our liberties. Stop the madness.
From: "Bill Butson" <email@example.com>
The concept of the permanent government has me intriqued. What is this permanent government? It's the mountain of bureaucrats that perpetuate this boondoggle called "government". They will sing whatever song the current administration/ cabinet secretary/ governor/ mayor/ councilman wants them to sing. Clinton was a whore, we all know that. But that was all he ever was! These perpetual bureaucrats change colors faster than a chameleon. Just as long as the money comes in!!!!
I've changed my tactics recently.
When I go to pay the ever increasing tax bill at the county office building, I first ask them a question like: "Did you do something wrong to get put in this job?"
"No, why do you ask?" she/he/it will say.
"Because stealing or extorting peoples money isn't something you should be proud to do." I respond. "There is legal and illegal plunder, and taxation is legal plunder because although the county or state says I have to pay you I don't want to give you my money to pay for more welfare hags to sit home and watch TV or get pregnant while I have to go to work. And if I don't pay you I'll get a call from the Sheriff and then I'll have to shoot him and then it will get real complicated."
By this time she/he it's passed out, got the shakes real bad or gone to get her supervisor or best of all copped the attitude that says: "I'm just doing my job!"
When they say "I'm just doing my job!" I have the perfect reply which is: "The Nazi's tried that excuse at the end of World War 2 and it didn't work for them because they were hanged by the neck until they were dead, what makes you believe it will work for you?"
I've been escorted out of the building the last two times and I love it. Special attention by the blood-suckers to a special tax payor.
So I firmly believe that the problem is the "Perpetual Government" which are the paper-pushers and useless bureaucrats. And these critters are in your own town or county, not some face you see on TV from Washington D.C. or the state capital. These people live near you. Catch my drift?
From: "Dan" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>From the TLE #106:
Well, here in New Hampshire in the last election there was a "libertarian" running for state senate here in the Nashua area named Postipotchil (sp?). The Nashua Telegraph did a piece on the three people running for that state senate seat (the one Postipotchil ran for). The headline for the story read something like "Candidates for State Senate District #x are worlds apart on education funding".
For those readers that aren't in New Hampshire, there's a court created education funding "crisis". The state supreme court is forcing the state legislature to determine the cost of an adequate education and then to come up with a uniform way of raising that money. The solution to it was a statewide property tax, which a court in Rockingham County recently ruled unconstitutional. And of course, the LPNH's zero adequacy solution (have the state legislature set the cost of an adequate education to zero and therefore the state doesn't pay any money to the school system) is dismissed by the popular press for various and sundry reasons.
Getting back to Postipotchil and the article in the Nashua Telegraph. In it, the Republican candidate basically said the statewide property tax (this was before the Rockingham County court's ruling) was perfectly fine. The Democrat thought we should have an income tax. And guess what the "libertarian" Postipotchil said? We should fund schools with gambling and liquor taxes. "Worlds apart on education funding" huh? Sounds like they're all on the same world, the same city in fact. Probably different apartments in the same complex.
From: "James J Odle" <email@example.com>
You are always a delight when you appear on Rushıs show.
However, I must disagree with you when you suggest that it is perfectly permissible to preemptively strike at another country whom we might not approve of who are arming themselves. This is the kind of thinking that has led to the stationing of troops in over a hundred nations around the world where they donıt belong.
Apparently, most of the presidents we have had this century have felt an uncontrollable need to spread some sort of Pax Americana across the planet -- usually unsuccessfully. (See the anthology The Failure of America's Foreign Wars, Ed. By Richard M. Ebeling and Jacob Hornberger.)
As I see it, the real question is, why are foreign nations tempted to attack us in the first place? I agree with the libertarian position of a fortress America as well as Bastiatıs notion of peaceful trade with all nations.
Taking sides, the War on Drugs and meddling in foreign nations has exposed us to terrorist activities here, at home and, in part, has led to the creation of a police state.
Frankly, when it comes to national defense, I prefer the vision of the Founding Fathers of an armed populace and no permanent standing army.
From: "System Attendant" <CRANE-SRV1-SA@crane-smtp.army.mil>
Trend SMEX Content Filter has detected sensitive content.
Place = firstname.lastname@example.org; ; ; John Taylor
Warning message from administrator:
[Well, that pretty much tears it -- I've been deleted by our "army of one"! -- ed.]
Your Ad Here! If you have goods or services the readers of The Libertarian Enterprise would be interested in, why not Advertise in the web edition of TLE?