THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 197, November 4, 2002

NOTA!


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500 words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear.]


Letter from Carl E. Mullin

Letter from Ward Griffiths

Letter from Susan Wells

Letter from Lowell Potter

Letter from Alobar


What if we adopt the color gold as the Libertarian color for flag and symbols?

What if we adopt a new campaign against war with new theme: "If we are going to end terrorism, let's start with housecleaning first!"?

Carl E. Mullin
visionary artist and entrepreneur
homo asteralis
ravenart@aol.com
http://www.ravenartstudio.com


re: W, as in "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", by Douglas F. Newman

We are in the midst of football season. Every weekend, across America, millions watch as a few dozen behemoths move a ball up and down a field. Some think it silly that we place so much emphasis on whether the guys in colored jerseys or the guys in white score more points at the end of 60 minutes. However, football illustrates an important point that we need to apply to politics. When the ball changes hands, the team with the ball moves it toward a different end zone than the other team. This is what makes sports exciting. (This is why sports engage my mind far more than politics, and why they are about the only form of mass entertainment that holds my interest.

As my friend Hunter has put it, a football game is poor use of a site that has already been marked out so conveniently as a pistol range.

- - -

re: Show-Me "Horrible Spectacle", by Mark Lamoree

We need another option. The end result of suffrage must not be a chance to choose between self-righteous nannies that will raise your taxes and sanctimonious twits who will raise your taxes. Therefore, I offer a simple proposition: every ballot in a nation- wide congressional election should have an option marked "none of the above." It must be a real option, and a meaningful vote. A majority of NOTA votes would require that the election be re-held with new contestants. Incumbents do not get to remain in office while the election is re-held.

Rather than waste yet more taxes on a special election and a salary for the eventual winner, simply board up that office until the next regularly scheduled election for that office. (Two years for the House, six years for the Senate, four years for the Presidency). Like offering chicken soup to a corpse, it couldn't hurt.

Ward Griffiths wdg3rd@comcast.net


So what would happen if less and less people vote in the U.S., the king of democracy's? After all, if less then 50% is enough to make a Serbian election invalid, what does it say about America if only 40% of the people turn out? I say it's time to find out.

The results are all around us right here and now. The lack of a majority bothering to vote has been repeated for many cycles, long before Clinton's 40% win. 40%, that is, of those who bothered to vote on that question at all.

Couldn't the Libertarian Party use that to our advantage? We could campaign on the disgust felt by the majority; they're sick of voting for what they perceive to be the lesser evil. But if we tell them that the majority don't vote right now, but if the majority WERE to vote the next time they'd be able to bring about real change, we might start electing Libertarian office holders. It's too late for 2002, but we might try this in 2004 (assuming that there are still elections in 2004).

- - -

We need another option. The end result of suffrage must not be a chance to choose between self-righteous nannies that will raise your taxes and sanctimonious twits who will raise your taxes. Therefore, I offer a simple proposition: every ballot in a nation- wide congressional election should have an option marked "none of the above." It must be a real option, and a meaningful vote. A majority of NOTA votes would require that the election be re-held with new contestants. Incumbents do not get to remain in office while the election is re-held.

There could then be immediate primaries featuring all new candidates. Candidates from all parties would be allowed the same amount of free television and radio time. If the American people were to hear of a party that would leave them and their loved ones alone, I believe they'd vote for us in droves.

Susan Wells Swftl@aol.com


Dear Editor,

Re: Oct. 28 TLE item, "Charity, Libertarian Style"....

This writer needs to take a good look at himself in the mirror...all 520+ pounds...

A humble plea for private charity is all well and good, seeing how the writer "does not wish to rely on coerced funds."

I wonder what category of funds he thinks all the unemployment and social stipends he has already consumed fall under?

How did this man survive close to 50 years with his sleep disorder, not to mention his weight disorder, without fancy, expensive, officially approved medical testing and treatments?

My sense of liberty and justice is offended at this author's assumption of the libertarian mantel to disguise the parasitic nature of his existence.

May I also point out that staple Atkins program foods such as eggs, meat, and salad are certainly no more expensive than fancy sweets and starches and/or beers and liquors.

To the author, I would say, "Keep off the carbs and the welfare, pal, and get your duff off the couch and get to work. Things may, or may not, get better, but at least you can become a slimmer and more honest libertarian."

"One thing is certain. When your number is up, you will pass on, fancy treatments and doctors notwithstanding."

"Quit worrying. Get a life. You might live longer."

In the spirit of charity,

Lowell Potter [lowell_potter@lycos.com]


re: Battered Women's Syndrome: Science or Sham?, by Wendy McElroy

While I do not buy that battered women who kill their abusers should get off because of some psychological plea, I am reminded of something I heard some years back. I have no idea if this was ever law in any of the states, but I have been told that in Texas & some other states, it used to be a respectable legal defense in a murder trial to enter the plea of not guilty because the victim needed killing. It was then up to the jury to decide if, indeed, they agreed that the person needed killing.

Whether the above plea was ever in effect, I am in favor of it. Someone kills your kid or bashes you around continuously. Kill the bastard & stand trial with "he needed killing" as a defense.

Alobar [alobar@bellsouth.net]


ADVERTISEMENT

You've read about it, now if you want to DO more FREEDOM in your life, check out:

[Are YOU Doing 
Freedom?]
Doing Freedom!

This ain't no collection of essays and philosophical musings!

Doing Freedom! Magazine and Services specializes in
hard-core, hands-on, how-to information that is meant to be
more than entertaining and interesting; our goal is to be useful.


Next
to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 197, November 4, 2002