THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 268, April 25, 2004
Embarrassed by the publication of the names of two Verizon managers involved in the three month suspension (without pay, without cause, and without a required hearing) of a Verizon employee, and by the release of details of a letter in which one manager subsequently fired the worker retroactively (again, without cause and without the contractually required hearing), Verizon pressured Jeffrey L. Jordan through his union to have the uncomfortable information suppressed, The company demanded that the names and firing details be censored on the Internet website North American Samizdat
which is owned and operated by a third party, not Mr. Jordan.
Informed of the pressure placed on a long time friend, NAS's editor, Carl Bussjaeger redacted the information under protest. Mr. Bussjaeger said, "It's a clear free speech case. If the woman had the nerve to threaten me, I'd just refer her to my lawyer. But instead, Verizon made it clear that it would stall any settlement in Mr. Jordan's improper firing. Well, I did what she wanted, and she's still stalling anyway. What's next? Threatening family members if customers complain of lousy phone service?"
NAS redacted the embarrassing information to allow Mr. Jordan a show of good faith in negotiations, and waited for a reciprocal good-faith showing from Verizon. Instead, Verizon continues to stall negotiations. Since the company has demonstrated that complying with its demands nets the same result as not doing so, NAS has opted for free speech and has restored the information which Verizon wanted hidden from public view.
NAS is pleased to report that Internet archiving engines had already permanently archived pages with the names of the managers intact, not only from NAS, but from still other independent sites. Verizon not only lacks an understanding of the First Amendment, they also do not understand the Internet.
Call for a boycott of Verizon
Google cache of offending data from other sites http://220.127.116.11/search?q=cache:W3tExsVd3IAJ:goodyearfamily.net/ http://18.104.22.168/search?q=cache:TSMF2BQIquIJ:libertyaction.blogspot.com/
Can anyone point me to an existing Libertarian 'keep the state out of my marriage' marriage contract, or even a good sample of one?
In this day and age of gay marriage questions, and all of the Libertarians speaking up about how eliminating the state's role in 'marriage' is the next step, I cannot seem to find ANY good sample contracts to use.
Google didn't find one, though it found lots of essays and talk about it. But not even an armchair 'IANAL' version of a sample contract.
This isn't purely a what if, I'm looking for something for a real life partnership, in the near near future.
Paying a lawyer to draft one from scratch seems silly, though I would agree that consulting one by both sides with a seemingly good contract in hand would be worthwhile... but I can't even find a sample to start from.
Legally, I'm thinking a ketubah (The Jewish Marriage contract) is a good legal foundation to start with. Plenty of 'case law' that would be hard to invalidate or claim lack of grounds.
I have no interest in signing a marriage license, or even worrying about the state claiming I'm not married (heck, please do so, so you can leave my 'non-wife' alone and not attempt to use her to come after me sideways, in fact I'm completely willing to be sure and state that in the eyes of the 'law' this is not a state approved marriage and as such isn't subject to treatment as such, but only as a contract between us, our heirs, etc....)
Please feel free to consult your friends and lawyers (and if you are friends with a lawyer, shame on you...) and let me know what you find if anything.
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor,
Regarding the letter to the editor, by Philip Prescott, concerning the ZAP, I'd like to comment briefly to say that I'm confused by his remarks.
Since, if the ZAP is a statement establishing the fact of a person's actions in relation to the lives of yet others, to mean that no person may prevent another from a course of action unless the action itself is a directed attack upon the first person, or other interested party, then in no case does Mr. Prescot's remarks make any sense.
So far as I am able to discern, the ZAP pretty much states right up front that as long as you don't attack, or collude to cause an attack upon another, then how the hell is that forcing someone to live a certain way unless of course, your whole ideal in life is to do just that (attack yet others)?
In the instance above, the term 'attack' is meant to impart the idea of some untoward act, which detracts from another's life, liberty, or property.
In fact, the whole system of justice in the US if not the rest of the world, could well be reduced to just the words of the ZAP.
How simple could it get?
One nice, straightforward, and easy to remember set of words which impart the entire thought of: Live and let live (or die).
In my Nov. 2003 TLE article I spoke of the egregious abuse of eminent domain in Lakewood, Ohio, where the city government had pasted a phony "blighted" label on a neighborhood in order to turn the property over to a developer. Well, there's good news today. According to The Instiute for Justice newsletter, "Liberty and Law" article entitled "Beating Bogus Blight in Lakewwod Ohio," the voters of Lakewood not only slapped the city government down on the eminent domain question but also voted not to allow the city to maintain the "blighted" designation. Kudoes to the IJ and huzzah to the rest of us.
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor,
In any case of the above?
Boone needs to 'get a life.'
It took me less than a femtosecond to realize that Boone has his head shoved so far up his posterior, that to see daylight, he'd have to either shove further, or call for help to winch-out the 'obstructions.'
How I see things:
Any kind of restriction upon any aspect of whatever press, is essentially nothing less then tyranny upon the mind of the person/s who desire to make a fact known.
It matters not what they wish to make known.
While some might decry 'some' information as unfit for human consumption, it remains to be seen as how 'those' people may view such things, and not be affected as well.
See? If they have seen the 'unfit,' then does not that make them unfit to associate with?
Then how could any other person be deemed 'unfit' as well, merely that they also viewed/heard what was determined as 'unfit' by a 'select' group of their peers?
This embodies the entire hypocrisy of the idea of censorship: Those who view are somehow morally superior to the rest.
But, how could that be?
If what is supposedly anathema to good morality is viewed by those who are 'better' than the rest, then how could the 'better' even begin to view any of that?
If they view it, then are they not equal to those whom have done so as well the supposedly worst among us?
If they are supposedly 'better,' then they should have decried any appointment to whatever office, merely upon the notification that they are 'superior,' as why would anyone who is superior desire to associate with his/her inferiors in an endeavor of a supremely inferior aspect of human activity such as government?
Then there are the 'jurors' in a trial concerning any matter of, and/or related to the above.
If those people too have been 'deemed fit' to view any aspect of which they are about to deliberate?
They also must be considered to be unfit to exist among the rest of us, merely that their psyche has also been 'infected' with the 'evidence.'
And that is the essence of hypocrisy: They decried, but did not deny the viewing placed before them.
It is the visceral hypocrite who allows him/herself to office, and in the process allows him/herself to be offended.
The Libertarian Enterprise readers would probably be interested in what we’re doing. We would appreciate your help of a mention on your site or news letter and any feedback you have. Feel free to check visit us online: www.billionairesforbushorkerry.org
Our Platform in a Nutshell:
Since then, Americans have enjoyed their freedom to elect either a Democrat or a Republican for president. This year's presidential election is no different, and Billionaires for Bush or Kerry is projecting our 36th consecutive Republicrat victory.
We are estimating our candidates will win 94.9% of the votes, and 100% of the electoral votes. While we‘re thankful for your ongoing support, our success has really been due to the American electoral process itself.
You've read about it, now if you want to DO more FREEDOM in your life, check out:
This ain't no collection of essays and philosophical musings!
Doing Freedom! Magazine and Services specializes in