L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 213, March 3, 2003
COME AND SEE!
I quote from Ms. McElroy's article:
"More government is the wrong solution, for several reasons. Whenever a person is attacked or threatened, it is appropriate to call in the law." And, "... violence must not be permitted and the law properly intercedes whenever it occurs."
Since when is this an anarchist position? Has she cracked? You can't have it both ways. Either the government has authority over a person's body and life or it doesn't.
The logical contradictions in this piece are unworthy of TLE.
Mike Oesterman [email@example.com]
Comment on "Ernie, Bernie, and Me"
Jim Lesczynski wrote:
"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" on Comedy Central called, and they were also interested in doing a feature.
It aired earlier this week. Geez ... even if you knew what most Daily Show features end up looking like, I wish you hadn't done that. "Intentionally absurd", after going through the Daily Show writers and producers, almost invariably makes it to the screen as "certifiably insane". Not to mention that it was a gun story. I love The Daily Show—I even smile when their liberalism shines through—but gun topics, without fail, transform them into mindless, witless Schumer/Brady clones.
Robert Hutchinson [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Doug Heard 's tongue-in-cheek suggestion that libertarians register Democratic and vote for Al Sharpton is an excellent monkey-wrenching idea. I have been a registered Democrat since 1983 and I can proudly say I have voted against the Democratic nominee for President in every single election. Twice. Count me as another vote for Sharpton if he survives long enough to get on the primary ballot in California.
Stephen Carville [email@example.com]
TLE 212—If I Ran the Circus
Neil Smith's article in TLE is one of his better articles about the cultural end of the battle for freedom. However, his description of the "Smith2004" list is not entirely accurate IMO. He writes:
I was a regular on the list from the beginning until recently when making a living demanded more of my time. Perhaps it has changed dramatically since I left but while I was there, the list was dominated by strict libertarian anarchists with only a little tolerance for differing viewpoints. Because I share many traits with anarchists and libertarians I fit in fairly well but I seriously doubt a conservative—someone like Barry Goldwater or Poul Anderson—would be welcome there.
Dear El Neil:
I have only one response to your excellent plan: If not now, when?
Terry Lyon-McCarthy [firstname.lastname@example.org]
I haven't seen this on the web and it's very valuable (to the best of my knowledge, correct) information for those who fear or want to be prepared for WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] events.
"A Soldier's Viewpoint on Surviving Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks, by SFC Red Thomas (Ret), Armor Master Gunner, Mesa, AZ"
Bill Westmiller [Westmiller@aol.com]
Am Open Letter to Saddam Hussain
Here is a piece for your perusal: An Open Letter to Saddam Hussain [attached].
- - -
An Open Letter to Saddam Hussein
My Dear President!
How lucky you are that almost whole of the world is on your back, supporting you! You see they are all against war. Yes, against the War. You are laughing; why?
Ah, because you are mistaken: they are not against war; they are against a war by a big country especially USA. They don't mind if Iraq attacks and conquers Kuwait, but surely they do mind if USA attacks Iraq. They don't mind if Iraq and Iran keep on fighting for years. They don't mind if the tribes of Rwanda kill each other. They don't mind if the terrorists blast buses and buildings and kill innocent citizens. [It's no war for them!] Now you follow this.
But they are in principle against the war. Are not they? I remember a talk with a friend's father. He was of the view that people like his son and his friends are educated and trained to be always on the side of the "oppressed." But what did he want to say is that if A oppresses B, these people will be supporting B, and if B is oppressed by C, these people's wrath will turn to C. Likewise, if some D oppresses C or B or A, they will be against it.
My Dear President! I think they are against the big ones; perhaps they covet them, especially Muslim and European countries and folks. They are doing Politics; they are not against war. Don't you see they are not against secret wars, terrorist wars waged by most of the countries of the world and their intelligence agencies against other countries? Don't you see they are not against the wars of the governments and states and so many other organizations and groups against the peace-loving individuals of the world? Don't you see they are not against suppression of the rights of individual citizens? Don't you see how they favor ideological tyrannies? Don't you see how they favor UNO's hegemony over the entire humanity? But they justify it as Charters, Declarations, and Conventions, etc. And, don't you see how they favor an International Tax to be imposed by UN on the already heavily taxed citizenry? Don't you see how they favor thus a universal fascism?
Conversely, and ironically, they favor the dictators and their actions and rights on various pretexts? It's baffling, too baffling that Law and Such People always come when the crime has been committed, and then they start campaigning for the rights of the person who has committed the crime. Don't they thus empower the criminals?
And, as I was saying, at heart they are probably against a country that's a second miracle of human history, first being the Greek one. You must be knowing how deeply the European countries covet the American Miracle, and how desperately the Muslim countries, and for that matter how badly all of the backward countries and individuals! They are against nothing but a country that is still the most creative of the world. They are not against war because of their principles. That's a big lie! Are not they selling arms to the world countries and various organizations? Are not they supporting dictators and dictatorships in the world? And, who knows what will be the fate of humanity after fifty years in case the European Union survives and strengthens?
It seems they are not against the smaller war lords but are deadly against the biggest war lord, USA. So . . . are not they supporting smaller war lords against the big one? Sure, they are not against War. Rather, they are a party to every war, and this time especially against USA's war on Iraq. Out of them, most of the countries and individuals are against War and USA for their own particular reasons. You see most of them were happy on and celebrated the tragedy of September 11, but were totally against the war on Afghanistan. They want to see a crumbling and disintegrating USA! This is their life-long wish! And they don't see what a great loss it will be for humanity. And, most of them think if UN legitimizes a war such as USA's war against Iraq, it will be a just and justified war. What a theorizing?
My Dear President! As you know it's no war of principles but a war of interests; and, do you realize, you have won most of the countries and people to your side. What a great feat for the President of a small country like Iraq! And, see how the President of a Superpower is being ridiculed and made fun of. He can't beat you, because he is a victim of universal jealousy. Oh, sorry, not he but his country is a victim of universal jealousy. But, it is he and most of his predecessors who had degraded this miracle country to such a level where its founding principles encoded in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are but given mere lip service. This miracle country could lead the world with its spirit of individual freedom and creativity and limited government; it could make its wars principled; but alas, it has locked horns with so many smaller war lords. Its wars have become unprincipled and politically motivated.
Congratulation!! You have won without fighting. And, do you see how and in what novel ways people are favoring you, strengthening you. They are campaigning for banning war totally. Again laughing. It's serious. Sure, I never support violence in any form; but what should I do if I am attacked. Should I respect the "Convention on Banning War" or leave myself to the will of the attacker? We know War can never be banned or banning it can never bear fruit until there exist the aggressors at any level be it individual, group, community, national, regional or international, nor can it be eliminated thus. And, that's a truly perfect dream never going to be realized. Would you then be justifying a war in the name of defense? I hope, not! And, we do know nothing can be wiped out from the face of human earth by legislating its banning or by the force of an authority. We can only hope that one day when the unit of human society will be the individual person and also when there will be no compartmentalization of individual human beings into various races, nations, nationalities, religions, states, countries, etc., and when there will be self-government instead of big and powerful government, then possibly there may not be a chance of such wars which we want to ban and which are a potential/actual danger to our civilization. But, surely even then there will remain individual acts of aggression and probably group of aggressors also.
My Dear President! I wish you good-luck and pray for your victory against the big war lord but at the same time I like to wish George Bush also good-luck and pray for his victory over the smaller war lords! Oh, sorry; actually I am in a fix which war should I support and which to deplore. It's just like a great mess; and I can't make what to do. But anyhow I am more concerned with the broader interest and survival of humanity and not with this or that country's interest or survival. Please forgive me for not being with you. But, nor am I with Bush also. Because, like Socrates I am a citizen, not of Athens, or of Greece, but of the World.
"You Don't Speak For Me"
Hiya John, here's another libbit/letter/whatever-you-want-to-do-with- it...
(If it's not apparent from the quoting/forwarding, I'm the original author of this.)
* Forwarded (from: 10TH_AMD) by Roy J. Tellason using timEd 1.10.y2k.
I've been hearing bits on the news here and there over the past several days, about how this group or that, typically a municipality, or a county, or whatever, has "passed a resolution against the war". It's enough to make you sick after a while.
Apparently I'm not the only one who feels that way. I forget if it's "State College" (the town) or Center (Centre?) County (where the town is located) where they'd passed such a resolution, recently. Apparently they got a lot of heat for doing that. So much, in fact, that they repealed that resolution, withdrew it completely!
As for the rest of the assholes that are doing this: Who do you people think you are, anyway? And how dare you be so presumptuous?
Roy J. Tellason [roy.j..email@example.com]