L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 134, August 13, 2001
Call to Action!
I'd highly recommend directing folks to this site (listed at tail.)
Vin Suprynowicz <email@example.com>
This seems like a particularly good time in history for new country projects, considering the fact that the armed force of a whole superpower is on fire sale (I remember the failure of the Na-Griamel movement well.) And the US is deliberately keeping the prices low. First Bush and then Clinton and then I presume Bush II have put quotas on companies trying to buy the old ICBMs from the ex-SSRs. I am woefully out of date on this subject. I have vaguely heard of the Belize project but know nothing of the others. I do know that Beal Aerospace had successfully negotiated a semi-autonomous zone from Guyana, but the project folded when Beal decided he couldn't handle the interference from US export-control authorities. Is there a good web site on new-country projects? Any other sources of information? What about the Costa Rican libertarian movement, any chance of it making Costa Rica into a Switzerland of Central America?
Even though new-country projects sound daunting, they have several advantages over competing in democratic interest-group politics. One is that those who pay for the project could benefit (from increased land values, etc.), leading to more reasonable financing models than the usual Libertarian electoral politics model "a bunch of poor libertarian activists will pay for the campaign, and the benefits will go preferentially to those who oppose us."
Bill Walker <WalkerBill@aol.com>
PS I work in a telomere research lab. Recent results in this field lead me to believe that we can live to see Libertarian countries thriving....
With respects to Mr.'s Sorens and Davidson in TLE#133, and the issue of 'Voting' as a valid decision making process.
Both gentlemen are correct, both pro and con. How can this be? Because each applies his objection and support in such a way as to have their "vote" apply in diferent situations.
"Voting", or the use of force by the majority, sucks. It is the use of force which makes it sucky, not the voting itself. "Voting" as a decision process works very well indeed where participation is voluntary, where there is no force used to apply the will of the majority to the minority.
No vote of the majority can make me want to move to east Africa without my personal opinion that I would be better off doing so. Idaho, Oregon, Texas, Beliez or Costa Rica are places where such a "majority" opinion might count as a greater factor in my decision, but it is still my decision.
Unanimity works. We don't need "majority rule" to decide where to attempt Galt's Gulch 2002, because each individual will make that decision for themselves. I'm very interested in where interested individuals suggest, because I for one am in a position to go anywhere at this time in my life. Even Somalia is not out of the question. New Utopia, Oceania, sure. Why not?
I think both Sorens and Davidson make the most sense with their mutual agreement: Just Do It. I hope both gentlemen will keep TLE readers aprised of their efforts so that others can join with them who can and wish to do so.
From Keith Shugarts:
"Even if people spend the money on "useless consumer goods" it is still flowing into the economy and creating jobs but we as libertarians already know how that works."
Another suggestion for the disposition of the 'Taxpayer's Relief' check:
I can't think of a better use for my $600 'Prefund' than to use it to acquire that Springfield .45 I've had my eye on. Always looking for ways to add to my collection (Oops. I own more than 5 guns so I guess I will add it to my 'Arsenal'). This action has the added advantage of really pissing of the leftists, particularly if you drop them a note and let them know. Even the $300 would get a nice .22 or two and 5,000 rounds of ammo.
Alan Peterson <NortonRyder@EarthLink.NET>
FYI; I hadn't seen this on TLE yet (and did a search on the Webley page to check the TLE archives) -- Scott <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Libertarian Enterprise;
An article appeared in the Washington Post today regarding King George III's vacation at his ranch in Texas. The Republican's are worried that King George III is being viewed as lazy because unlike his predecessor King William the Pantless, King George is not doing the people's business (a phrase that causes me to shudder at every dripping statist mention of it). While the Democrat's charge that King George is taking a vacation and that he is not working for the country while at his ranch.
To both sides I reply, Who cares? Government officials should take more time off. Hell, government officials should take so much time off that their title only suggests a part time occupation instead of a full time oppression. Instead of sitting in Washington, DC for nine months out of the year, they should be doing their own business instead of sitting in committee and council creating new bureacracies and burdensome law and meddling in others. The United States is awash in law. The Statue of Liberty has pulled her skirts up and is wearing wading boots to avoid the rush of yet another onrush of stinking statist law. As in the Probability Broach, government should be an occassional disturbance, not an all to frequent bother. There should be no permanent government at all and when necessary it should meet out in the middle of North Dakota in the Winter and the panhandle of Oklahoma in the Summer. So I say to King George the III, stay in Texas, don't come back. Let the Senate and House squabble away the rest of your term, don't sign any legislation, and let Washington, DC be consumed by the Potomac and returned to the festering swamp it had been, and fade away from memory from lack of use.
Yours in Liberty,
Keith Shugarts <email@example.com>
I noted in your Free State Project article in The Libertarian Enterprise about the hippie plan to take over Vermont, which I've been following from across the river in New Hampshire since 1977. NH has historically been a right leaning libertarian state, while Vermont has been more of a left leaning libertarian state. Here in NH, we've had an ongoing tussle over funding of education since a criminal State Supreme Court decision here invented the claim that our state constitution mandates that every child has a right to an equal education, and that the state must fund this. NOTE: the state constitution says no such thing.
Towns that are 'property rich' now pay a huge amount of the communities property taxes to the state, while poor towns, which have generally been run into the ground by democrats, get millions in subsidies from the state to provide an 'adequate education'. A problem with this is that every town gets to decide how it is to value the property within the town, so 'poor' towns are preventing revaluation of real estate to increase their take from the state. The 'rich' towns are as a result now discussing seceding from the state. This has begun in Newmarket, NH, and is spreading to Rye, NH and other seacoast communities. The other day, 250 people showed up at a Newmarket town meeting to seriously discuss issues related to secession.
I think this is an excellent opportunity for libertarians to congregate, en masse, in these jurisdictions, become residents, and help push these coastal communities to independence. This area is also home to the former Pease Air Force Base, which is now a civil trade port, and can handle air traffic of any size. It is also home to Hampton Beach, which is a fine tourist destination with a boardwalk capable of hosting casino traffic. Portsmouth Bay is a prime harbor that has been a primary shipbuilding location since before the Revolutionary War.
Best of all: New Hampshire's state constitution gives the people and communities the right to secede (this is how Vermont came to be a state, rather than just a part of New Hampshire.)
Michael S. Lorrey <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I don't know if the following observations have been made before but in case the have not, here goes...
Much derision is heaped on Pokemon, the game, movies and TV series. Has anybody really paid attention to it though?
The main characters in the movies and series are Ash who wants to become the best Pokemon trainer ever, Brock who is a breeder of Pokemon and Misty who is...well OK I don't know what her gig is but that is not the point.
The point is all three are young adults-teenagers who do not appear to be older than 13-14. Why is this important?
Not only are the travelling the length and breadth of their country they are doing it packing an arsenal of weaponry.
Ash himself has a Pikachu which shoots lightning bolts and is as fast as a cheetah, think of him as stun gun that can come at you at 50 MPH, Charizard which flies and shoots flames, Squirtle has a water cannon, Bulbasor has these sharp vine things etc.
Imagine if instead of the show using the fantasy of Pokemon it actually had the kids walking around with real weapons.
Ash wants to be the best that ever was at practical shooting sports, Brock is a weapons trader or designer and Misty...again I don't know, but something weapons related.
Do you think such a show would still be on the air? I don't.
The writers of the show do not have the majority of Pokemon owners acting irresponibly with their creatures, in fact those that do wrong are shown being defeated, and humiliated.
My last point (stop cheering!) is a hypothetical. Imagine we all had Pokemon, maybe one, maybe a half dozen per person, if somebody tried to use a his Pokemon for evil what would be the result? That's right, he would not get far. Would this then be a disincentive to the criminal minded? Of course.
I have been using this show to teach my kids about the value and morality of being armed, responsible and standing up to evil. They already know the have the absolute right to fight back, now with the aid of this show they are being shown what a responsible, well armed society might look like.
Warren Tilson <email@example.com>
I just got through with Cracking the Liberty Bell, by J. J. Johnson. Some of you might know Johnson as the editor-in-chief of sierratimes.com.
Let me just say, I could not put this book down. As gripping from one chapter to the next as anything Tom Clancy has written, but a lot less loving of the State. Hell, it could be labeled "seditionist" by those who would dare. I was blown away by Johnson's grasp of strategy, tactics, weapons, and small-scale politics, both on the side of the FBI/BATF/local police, and within the Ohio Militia movement. Perhaps even more impressive was his ability to convincingly portray his characters' struggles as they dealt with the onslaught around them.
Oh, and there's a whole lot of gubmint asskicking!
I gain nothing from promoting this book except knowing that everyone who does so will be more fulfilled for doing so. By the way, I finished L. Neil Smith's Hope the week before, and found it outstanding as well (although everyone beat me to the punch gushing over that one...).
Cracking the Liberty Bell can be purchased online at the following link, where you'll also find a one chapter teaser:
Brian Jennings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
If you've brought her up right, she'll be the one with the rifle and you'll be reminding her how to breath so as not to disturb her aim.
Quote from my daughter (4 yrs old) while standing in front of a display of .38 snubs: "Daddy, those are little guns for little people. I'm going to get one of those."
I have seen quite a few missives here and there lamenting the fact that the collectivists have, in generations past, stolen the the term Liberal.
Having lost the use of Liberal, we could call ourselves free-marketeers, uber capitalists, classic liberals, freedonians or whatever comes to mind.
Or, perhaps, "True Liberals". This would make the point that current users of the term are False Liberals, which of course is insulting. A slap in the pasty face as it were.
Sure there is a bit of religious undertone, the whole hereitc/infidel thing which makes it ironic and hence more fun.
Warren Tilson: True Liberal. <email@example.com>
Regarding "On Mortimer Adler" by Gail Garvis
In particular this quaint little statement near the end of an otherwise rather enlightened bit of writing.
"Alas, scientists are now relegating Darwin's theory of evolution to the trash heap along with Freud's silly complexes and Marx's collectivist fairy tales."
Oh goodie, I can hardly wait to tell my old paleontology professors, not to mention all those petroleum geologist who successfully find oil using the law of fossil succession that Darwin's theory of evolution has been tossed on the trash heap by "scientists" whoever that might be.
Not only will we have to invalidate 150 years of geological science that has worked at predicting locations of oil, gas, minerals, and contributed to the theory of continental drift, but we are going to have to break the news to the biologists who have based their entire science on evolution, also have to tell the bio-engineers, and the geneticists that everything they know and do is based on a lie. Have to figure out why all that stuff works, going to wierd us science types out I tell you.
How silly, look Gail you don't have to believe in evolution it doesn't make one wit of difference if you don't have the vaguest idea where that gas you are pumping came from or how it was found.
But please for the sake of my digestion at least avoid quoting "scientists" for whenever I hear "scientist say" or some such similar statement, it quite tells me that the bloke making the statement has not the vaguest idea of what he is saying.
Darwin was right, he may not have known the mechanism or the details but given the measurements he had to work with he was as right as it was possible to be right.
But like I said it matters not a wit whether you believe in Darwin's Theory (its more like a law of science by this point and should be in the future refereed to as a law not a theory) or that some fairy in the sky made you and everyone else. We geologists, paleontologist, biologists, geneticists, and bio-engineers will keep doing what we do.
And you will keep benefiting from it.
A recent letter to the Editor [not the one above - ed.] questioned opinions expressed in my article "On Mortimer Alder", specifically my dismissal of Freud and Darwin. I also received a skeptical email regarding my thoughts on Darwin. I'll respond but I don't know if I can be brief enough to qualify as a letter to the editor.
Freud's famous complexes such as the Oedipus and Electra are no longer considered valid. However, some therapists still use the psychoanalytic technique even though statistics show that roughly half of recipients are helped and half are not helped. But some people love to talk about their "problems"and are willing to pay for the privilege.
As a preface to discussing Darwin's theory of evolution, let me state that the history of mankind is strewn with examples of scientific, medical and philosophical "theories" that where once held in high esteem only to be rejected in the light of future evidence. And now even Einstein's theory of relativity is under attack.
I can't help but think that Darwin knew he was engaging in grandiose thinking when he proposed a theory that would explain the origins of human life. Indeed he admitted that his arguments for evolution might not be true science. But, optimistically, he hoped that evidence discovered in the future would validate his hypothesis. Sadly, such evidence has never been found.
The last three decades have not been kind to Darwin. Recent discoveries have done more to negate his theory than support it. The "missing links" were never found and the gaps between emerging species are still unexplained. Also the ancestors of many species have never been discovered. And, during the Cambrian period, scientist discovered an explosion of life that contradicted Darwin's theory of a gradual evolution of species.
There is now considerable support among scientists for the "big bang" theory of life development as well as "quantum-jump mutations". Darwin's theory is still only a theory and not a very good one at that if we place credence in thinkers such as Loren Eisley, Thomas Henry Huxley, Michael Denton, Louis Pasteur, Colin Patterson, John A. Fleming, Fred Hoyle, Samuel Blumenfeld, Louis Agassiz, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Hubert Yockley and others.
What about science teachers? What do they believe? A 1997 survey of science teachers listed in the U.S, Register of Science Teachers showed that 40% believed in evolution, 41% didn't and 19% were undecided. In other words, 60% of the teachers responding to the survey were not convinced as to the validity of the theory of evolution.
These negative percentages would probably also apply to college professors and members of the scientific community. The September 16, 1996 issue of Newsweek carried a long article titled "Heretics in the Laboratory" concerning the surprising number of scientists who no longer believe in evolution.
Obviously there are still scientists who claim that evolution is a fact. But scientists have an unusual definition of the word "fact." We laymen believe that unless something can be proven it is not a fact. Scientists claim that we can assume something is a fact unless it is disproved. I know this sounds a little like Bill Clinton's famous Zen answer, "It depends on what the meaning of is, is". But it indicates the gulf between laymen and scientists.
However scientists no longer try to defend evolution by reference to fossil discoveries because so many have turned out to be fraudulent. Their current rationalizations sound almost as if they are pleading with us. As one scientist recently said of the theory of evolution, ".with all its faults, it is still the best we have. It is a fruitful theory, a stimulus to thought and research, and we should accept it until someone thinks of a better one."
Well "better ones" may have already been proposed and others are being pursued vigorously by many in the scientific field, many that can no longer accept Darwin's theory. And their actions as well as their comments are gradually relegating Darwin's theory to the trash heap.
Finally a personal note. The letter to the editor incorrectly addressed me as Ms. Jarvis, an obvious mistake made because of the spelling of my first name, Gail. This happens frequently and consequently I usually send a picture along with my articles. But I am a male and even though I believe in quantum-jump mutations, I have not mutated into a female, which pleases my wife.
Gail Jarvis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
There's only one obvious choice for a libertarian state. Of course, most people don't even believe it exists and very few could even find it on a map. However, it's not landlocked and has one of the smallest populations. Unfortunately, it's currently occupied by looney left-wingers who are happy to exercise the disproportionate political power enjoyed by this suburb of Chappaquidick: Rhode Island.
Bill Westmiller <Westmiller@aol.com>
Take control of your health and your finances! Benefit from the convergence of the preventative healthcare and e-commerce revolutions by partnering with the world leader in human nutrition. Patented products addressing cholesterol reduction, cancer prevention, weight loss, etc., drive a unique compensation plan! For information visit http://www.WebHealthBiz.com or call 888-211-9104.