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

154

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 154, December 31, 2001
YEAR OF TERROR ENDS


Dear TLE,

I support your right to duel or most any other thing you choose.

Historically, common law courts probably appeared as a means of stopping dueling, fighting and other uses of force to resolve a conflict.

Probably, friends form both sides got tired of joining in and getting hacked up along with their hot-headed friends. As a matter of self-preservation, friends from both sides decided it made more sense to secure their friends and get them to agree to go to a mediator/judge in order to determine a just solution that both parties could live with.

These early judges quickly learned. not only how to find a solution, but how to present their ideas in such a fashion that it appealed to all parties or at least to those without an emotional interest. They had to create enough peer group pressure to ensure all parties would mostly follow the court's advice.

Many of these were religious leaders. Sometimes, they were thoughtful and wise people. Additionally, they could apply the written or oral traditions of their religions to the dispute. This added more weight to the decision.

Common law is not what some idiot attorney says it is. Common law does look at precedents. It is not bound to precedents. The function of common law is restitution. You may use the words, "Natural Law", if that will help you overcome preconceived notions.

One definition of common law worthy of some thought is, "Common Law is what a Fully Informed and Fully Empowered Jury says it is."

Many people will start on the game of, "what if?", while keeping their thinking tied to the legal mess we have currently.

While you work this thought over in your head, keep these things in mind:

1. The decision has to appeal to a lot of people or there is no peer group pressure to bring to bear.

2. There is no one to go out and steal money form other people to pay to arrest and hold in jail other people for smoking, or reading titillating material, or meat eating, enjoying their own bodies or any other politically incorrect action. There ain't no "politically correct" that doesn't fall before the advantages of free trade and tolerance.

3. If you discover a conundrum, ask if it is a problem in a free world where you don't have the infrastructure for tyranny.

Some of the problems with dueling include; there are some bad people out there who are very talented in their destructive capabilities.

Randy Weaver might have a decent chance against Lon Haruchi in a duel for murdering his wife, Vicki Weaver, at Ruby Ridge or other members of that FBI Swat team who shot his son in the back. However if someone of Haruchi's ilk had murdered the family of a young boy and the boy challenges him, Haruchi would choose sniper rifles at 300 yards and the boy is dead.

If you are the aggrieved party, offering a professional offender their choice of weapons would get a lot of people killed.

I think that dueling would cause the death of a lot of people for no good cause. You have the right to do it. It is not a means of insuring justice in any society.

In a free society, there will be competing courts that achieve more good than bad or no court exist for long. Bad courts can only exist with a supporting infrastructure of tyranny, like we have today.

The rights to common law courts were taken from the people and they were told they would have to use the judges appointed by the Kings. These were Dukes and other supporters of the Tyrants. They would use the courts as a means to extract additional monies from the serfs. You know, that's a lot like things are today.

Once we have unfettered competition, there will be courts that help achieve justice, peace and reasonable enforcement of contract. Until that day, we will have the mess we have currently... and against the legalized injustice we have currently, I suppose, even dueling looks good.

Live Long & Free,

Don Winfield btp2@mindspring.com


RE: LISTENING TO THE GOVERNMENT
by Chris Henderson

Looks like the events on the attempted "shoe bomb" flight would indicate that this trend to passive airline passengers is ending ... Not only did the flight attendants fight to subdue the schmuck, but apparently some of the passengers got involved ...

I don't think we will ever see another 09/11, at least not one lauched from a hijacked airliner ...

Steve Trinward strin@worldnet.att.net


I'm not looking to defend what JF did in the 70s, but this needs to be squelched:

Barbara Cunningham said:

I've never figured out exactly what Jane Fonda believes in other than the promotion of Jane Fonda. And she was directly responsible for several deaths of POW's during the Vietnam War. And, as best I can gather, she is unrepentant for her actions.

Truth is, that stuff about the POWs she's supposed to have caused the deaths of, is an urban myth, disputed and refuted by some of the very POWs she is supposed to have so affected! Not good to spread that level of calumny, when it has been disproven. (PLEASE don't ask me for the source; it's been debunked for years now ...)

The things she DID do were pretty unforgivable, but at the time I think she basically believed in what she was doing, just lacked the sense to do with some ... well, sense! (Joan Baez also opposed the war, perhaps even more consistently, but she did her protesting at home, where it could not be mistaken for 'aid and comfort' ...

Steve Trinward strin@worldnet.att.net

[Editor's Note: read a very good, unbiased account of Jane Fonda's activities and the truth about POW treatment associated with her 'visits' at http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/weekly/aa110399.htm Be sure to read Michael Benge's article, linked therein. Personally, this Viet Nam combat veteran wishes nothing but the worst for Jane Fonda ... one of few people I allow myself to actively hate. - jct]


There's a report on a new study on the cost of FDA approval at: http://www.ncpa.org/iss/hea/pd120301b.html

Hmmm. I read that entire web page, top to bottom, and I missed where it mentioned the FDA. It did mention that the research is now more expensive than it was, but the only folks that seem to be blamed by the web page were the managed-care folks who now want more assurance that the drugs actually work.

On related page http://www.tufts.edu/med/csdd/images/StepsInDrugDevelopment.pdf there is a statement that the FDA "can halt studies if it deems them unsafe, or if it believes the design will not meet the study's stated objectives."

Perhaps Mr. Walker or Ms. Wells would bless us with actual excerpts from the study indicating how the FDA significantly increases the cost of development. Simply requiring studies of safety and effectiveness hardly seems to be a damning indictment of the FDA.

They claim that the cost of getting one new drug into service is $802 million including capital costs. No wonder there's not much progress.

And that's absolutely unacceptable! Think of all of the people suffering and dying needlessly!

That high price certainly is unfortunate. But it remains to be shown that it can be done at a much lower price without sacrificing reasonable controls for safety and effectiveness. The cited study seems to be a slender reed on which to build an indictment of the FDA.

We need to get rid of the FDA, the DEA and the Controlled Substances Act. We've already got Underwriters Laboratories and Consumer Reports. If any other entity needs to exist to monitor drugs, I'm sure the free market would produce one.

I don't doubt for a moment that the FDA increases the cost of drug development without producing any commensurate benefit; and I fully agree that the FDA, the DEA and the Controlled Substances Act should be eliminated, but neither the letter from Mr. Walker and Ms. Wells, nor the Tufts study itself seems to be the compelling argument for that elimination.

Or did I somehow miss all the good dirt at the cited web page?

Bill Bunn billbunn@reninet.com


Letter from Bill Bunn

Jim Davidson wrote:

... back when the Army was sending smallpox blankets to every native American Indian reservation on the continent.

It's a rather commonplace story that the army sent smallpox blankets to some Indians at some time. I suppose this story has some basis in fact, but I've never before heard it as "every ... reservation". Does Mr. Davidson have some authority for this story, and particularly for the "every ... reservation" claim?

Bill Bunn billbunn@reninet.com


Reply from Jim Davidson

Dear Editor,

I gather that Bill Bunn would rather believe that every native American Indian in North America was better off having their land stolen, their treaties with the USA feral gummint ignored, their wells poisoned, and their way of life eliminated. Or, perhaps he hasn't heard of the literary technique of exaggeration as it may be used in sarcasm, irony, or for emphasis.

The "inoculation" of Indians with smallpox blankets is admittedly an example of British atrocity, as well: http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

One author notes, "The truth is that many states--California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia is an incomplete list--placed bounties on Indian scalps, poisoned Indian water sources, gave them smallpox infected blankets, burned their villages, and destroyed their crops." That author is J.W. Smith and he footnotes Austin A. Murphy, F. Waters, and Ward Churchill on this point.

Donald A. Henderson, MD, MPH; Thomas V. Inglesby, MD; John G. Bartlett, MD; Michael S. Ascher, MD; Edward Eitzen, MD, MPH; Peter B. Jahrling, PhD; Jerome Hauer, MPH; Marcelle Layton, MD; Joseph McDade, PhD; Michael T. Osterholm, PhD, MPH; Tara O'Toole, MD, MPH; Gerald Parker, PhD, DVM; Trish Perl, MD, MSc; Philip K. Russell, MD; Kevin Tonat, PhD; for the Working Group on Civilian Biodefense write of the practice of soldiers passing out smallpox infected blankets with the intention of killing Indians.

But, gosh, Bill, if the story only "has some basis in fact" as you say, does that make your friends in the USA feral gummint great people? They didn't kill every single Native American Indian with smallpox. Some, they saved for starvation. Some were left on reservations to grow up with alcoholism, hopelessness, and suicide. Just what are you saying, Bill? That the USA feral gummint is a great institution? That we should love and admire the Great White Fathers in government who screwed over Indians, claimed it was for their good and ours, and then went on to grant a few tribes the opportunity to make money through casino gambling?

It appears that the motto for Bill Bunn is "let's not go overboard on anything." I take Heinlein's view: take life in big bites; moderation is for monks.

As far as I'm concerned if one person in any government undertook to act officially by killing one individual with smallpox, that's way too many. Any such behavior should be punished vigorously, but has not been punished. It is up to those individuals who seek freedom to understand what has gone before, and if by exaggerating I can provoke some investigation or inquiry or examination of history, great.

As an alternative to me proving that every single Indian reservation on the continent was visited by a smallpox blanket, I suggest you prove that killing only one child with smallpox is such a minor matter as to be ignored in our contemplation of how to be more free.

Regards,

Jim Davidson jdavidson@cbjd.net

Reply from Bill Bunn

At 08:22 PM 12/24/2001, you wrote:

I gather that Bill Bunn would rather believe that every native American Indian in North America was better off having their land stolen, their treaties with the USA feral gummint ignored, their wells poisoned, and their way of life eliminated.

Really Jim, I can't imagine where that came from. I only asked for more information.

Or, perhaps he hasn't heard of the literary technique of exaggeration as it may be used in sarcasm, irony, or for emphasis.

Sorry I failed to see that it was intended as exaggeration for sarcasm, irony or emphasis.

The "inoculation" of Indians with smallpox blankets is admittedly an example of British atrocity, as well: [...]

Thanks for the references.

BTW, in a book on California Indians, I read that Indians were being sold as de facto slaves in LA as late as 1870 -- five years after the civil war ended. The state law provided that any off-reservation Indians who were not "gainfully employed" (or something like that) could be forced into work (for their own good, I'm sure). Sorry, I have no reference for that assertion.

But, gosh, Bill, if the story only "has some basis in fact" as you say, does that make your friends in the USA feral gummint great people?

They are certainly not my friends, nor great people.

They didn't kill every single Native American Indian with smallpox. Some, they saved for starvation. Some were left on reservations to grow up with alcoholism, hopelessness, and suicide. Just what are you saying, Bill?

I thought that if the smallpox blanket ploy was used more than a few times, I'd like some reference for that fact.

That the USA feral gummint is a great institution? That we should love and admire the Great White Fathers in government who screwed over Indians, claimed it was for their good and ours, and then went on to grant a few tribes the opportunity to make money through casino gambling?

That's certainly not my viewpoint, and if you thought I was suggesting that, then I must apologize for the lack of clarity in my message.

It appears that the motto for Bill Bunn is "let's not go overboard on anything."

That may be fair enough. I'd put it as "let's not deceive ourselves or each other with our exaggerations and/or oversimplifications". I find enthusiasts often seem to do that.

I take Heinlein's view: take life in big bites; moderation is for monks.

Heinlein is my favorite writer, at least of fiction. BTW, I have a web page of recommended reading at http://www.reninet.com/maile/billbunn/Books.htm.

As far as I'm concerned if one person in any government undertook to act officially by killing one individual with smallpox, that's way too many. Any such behavior should be punished vigorously, but has not been punished.

Agreed. While the perpetrators are long dead, perhaps an acknowledgement by our current government would be most appropriate.

It is up to those individuals who seek freedom to understand what has gone before, and if by exaggerating I can provoke some investigation or inquiry or examination of history, great.

Again, agreed. And again, I apologize for failing to see that you had intended it to be seen as exaggeration.

As an alternative to me proving that every single Indian reservation on the continent was visited by a smallpox blanket, I suggest you prove that killing only one child with smallpox is such a minor matter as to be ignored in our contemplation of how to be more free.

I certainly would not suggest any such thing.

Bill Bunn billbunn@reninet.com

Reply from Jim Davidson

Dear Bill,

Really Jim, I can't imagine where that came from. I only asked for more information.

Okay, then. Maybe I went overboard. It appears from your current response that you aren't a pro-government ogre.

Thanks for the references.

I hope these help. I'm often capable of finding references to information that I cite in my breezy and casual fashion. The nice thing about writing for TLE is that I can state my views without footnotes, or include footnotes if I'm inclined.

Sorry, I have no reference for that assertion.

No sweat. I've spent enough time there to be happy to believe the worst of California state government without references.

I'd like some reference for that fact.

Cool. Now you have some. I feel confident that more may turn up at your local library or in the history section of your local bookstore. I offer no apology for not having included references in my item printed in TLE and none for the limited number of references in my recent response to you. If you're inclined to accept, I would be happy to apologize to you for assuming that you were favoring Bureau of Indian Affairs policies simply on the basis of your rather terse request for reference materials.

Heinlein is one of my favorite authors. You might like to read some of L. Neil Smith's stuff, too. I'm engrossed in The American Zone just now.

Agreed. While the perpetrators are long dead, perhaps an acknowledgement by our current government would be most appropriate.

I think that would be a good start. And some such mention by the British government for the actions by Amherst would be good, too. It seems to me that there is probably an estate left by Amherst, and there is certainly a successor government to the then-extant British and USA governments, and successors to the governments of the several states. I'd be tickled pink to see the descendants of the families which survived the smallpox epidemics (which killed around 50% of Indians in affected tribes) sue the various estates, heirs, successor governments, et al. Of course, that would raise taxes, which might polarize more people to bring about the demise of some of these governments.

Regards,

Jim Davidson jdavidson@cbjd.net


Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament, by Aaron Zelman and Richard W. Stevens. The new book from JPFO.

Why does JPFO exist? What motivates us year after year? You can find the answers in our brand new book.

People have asked us to present the whole JPFO argument in one place. We have done it. Available now in an easy-reading format and a handy size, the new book is entitled Death by Gun Control: The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament.

The message is simple: Disarmed people are neither free nor safe - they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When the civilians are defenseless and their government goes bad, however, thousands and millions of innocents die.

Order from JPFO NOW!
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm


Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 154, December 31, 2001.