THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 290, September 26, 2004

"Taxation With Representation"


[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 EJ Totty

Letter from Michael Badnarik

Letter from Ron Beatty


Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Mr. Beatty,

Re.: "Survey of the Bill of Rights: Article 6", by Ron Beatty
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle289-20040919-04.html

Once again, Mr. Beatty does a Yeoman job of explaining the matter of Constitutional law: The Sixth Art. of Amendment to the USC.

I don't hold much hope, though, of any kind of 'resolution' to the matters discussed, simply because those who hold the reins are too corrupt and drunk with power over the rest of us.

Human government is frail, simply because frailty is multiplied by the number of the frail who pretend to be better than the rest of us—by governance. An ounce of sewage may be contended with a whole lot easier than a million gallons of that.

I consider that what Beatty is trying to tell us is this: The USC has not been amended to allow the transgressions conducted daily against ourselves. Therefore, & therefor, the actions taken against the principals in every case he mentioned were in fact illegal.

How could they not have been?

The drug laws are just as illegal—when the Ninth Art. of Amendment is considered.

Well, actually, slavery was illegal too, by virtue of the first and second paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence—in the context that those Blacks who were kidnapped from their foreign lands were just as sovereign where they came from, but that didn't stop despots of their lands from selling them into slavery, or for some of the founders from wallowing in it—till death do them part.

If it had been illegal to import French citizens from their lands to be used as slaves in the US, then why not those of Africa?

Or, are we to presume that the heads of government of those African nations were just as probable to sold into slavery, were they to fall from grace ...?

It's a supreme irony that in the land of the free, and the home of the brave, a law was needed to be enacted to outlaw the act of slavery. Those who enslave are neither free, nor brave.

See? It's like this: The African governments which sold their own citizens into slavery, were themselves considered valid governments from the several points of view, concerning 'trade,' just as with any other government.

Now, for the Americans to hold that slavery was okay where Blacks were concerned is pure and total hypocrisy, simply because if Whites were enslaved? Can't have that now, can we?

Yet the then government of the US did business with those African governments whose citizens were considered probable slave material, while not accepting slaves from England, or France, or Ireland, or Norway, or ...

This whole scheme of government is one giant hypocrisy, and it won't get any better, until it gets a whole lot worse.

We all complain about what's new under the Sun in our present circumstance, but not much has changed at all—if anything.

Actually, it's just 'business as usual' where government is concerned.

I hate to say this, but I've come to consider it to be a truism: The USC was—and still is—a hand-holding exercise, invented as some kind of pacifier, to keep the people in line: Tell them a damned good lie, and they will believe it!

It must be true ... two hundred years is as about as good as it gets!

'Same as it ever was ...' from "Once in a Lifetime" by David Byrne, Talking Heads: Stop Making Sense.

Slavery is, then, the whole issue, as it has been right from the start, because government is the very essence of instituted slavery.

In Liberty,
EJ Totty
ejt@pop.seanet.com


Below is a statement issued by Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik to Americans 18 to 30 years of age:

Nowhere is the increasing failure of the American political system more apparent than with respect to younger voters, and it is primarily you to which I address myself.

My opponents are long on promises. They can afford to be, because they think in terms of the next four years and of their own political careers. Those terms are not compatible with long-term thinking about your future.

America's foreign policy continues to put young Americans in harm's way, both as targets of terrorism and as potential conscripts in future wars made necessary by our politicians' predilection for interfering in the affairs of, and intervening in the arguments between, other nations.

Our retirement policy continues to tax young Americans to sustain a failed Social Security system which, according to the statements of its own trustees, will be bankrupt within your working lives.

Our health policy continues to drive the cost of health care up and the availability and quality of health care down.

Our drug policy continues to threaten Americans—mostly younger Americans—with harsh punishments for actions which ought not to be considered crimes at all.

Our spending policy continues to pass the buck—or, more accurately, the bill. Deficit spending accrues to a national debt which must be paid back at some point. That point, for our politicians, is always "someday"—meaning that they are counting on younger Americans to pay higher taxes later in their lives to support government profligacy now.

As a presidential candidate, my focus is unlike that of my opponents. It's on the future. YOUR future.

As president, I'll work to re-orient American foreign policy to a non-interventionist, pro-defense standard, making American civilians safer and putting American military personnel to their legitimate work of defending our nation, not invading other nations. I'll veto any bill which introduced a military—or civilian—draft.

As president, I'll work to move Social Security into the private sector so that one generation isn't retiring on the back of the next. Americans would control their own destinies and make their own decisions on how to provide for their retirement.

As president, I'll work to end the disastrous government intervention in health care, meaning that more Americans will be able to afford better care—and to get it.

As president, I'll take concrete steps to end the failed and vicious "war on drugs." I'll pardon all non-violent drug offenders in the federal prison system. I'll veto legislation containing funding for prosecution of the war on drugs. And I'll lobby congress to repeal the unconstitutional drug laws which have torn the very fabric of American society.

As president, I'll insist on a balanced federal budget—and on a much SMALLER federal budget which leaves more money in your pocket. You earned it. It's yours. You should be able to keep it.

I've touched on only a few of the issues which are most relevant to younger Americans, but I think you get the basic outline of my approach:

I'm the candidate who trusts Americans and believes in America. I'm the candidate who regards government as a poor solution at best, and almost always not as a solution at all, but rather part of the problem. This approach is all that stands between your generation and the crushing weight of past mistakes. And time is running out.

I'm Michael Badnarik, Libertarian for President. I ask the tough questions—to give you answers that really work!

Contact: Stephen P. Gordon
communications@badnarik.org
http://Badnarik.org/


As some of you may know, I was recently priviledge to attend Mr. Badnarik's speech at the campus of Ohio State University. Up until this point, I had never met Mr. Badnarik, and had only hearsay evidence of the man and his character. My whole life has taught me to take that with a large grain of salt, even when it comes from people whom I highly respect and admire, such as Kate Graham, Tom Knapp, and L. Neil Smith.

Well, in this case the hearsay was fully justified. Not only was I able to hear Mr. Badnarik's speech, but was present for the question and answer session which followed. Nothing I heard in any way led me to believe that this man was a 'politician' in the sense of the word that so many of us percieve. Most of us think of politicians as lying two-faced persons who will do anything for a vote. Well, I am glad to say that I personally witnessed Mr. Badnarik stand up for his beliefs, in the sure knowledge that it would cost him at least one or more votes, speaking his mind freely and definitively. I watched him tell a gun control advocate that if he tried to take Mr. Badnarik's gun, he would be shot. There were no ifs, ands or maybes about it. I also watched him tell a strong advocate of governmental professional licensure that she was a fool for trusting anyone, especially a government, with the responsibility of determining if a doctor was competent, instead of checking for herself.

This is a man who is intense, focused, determined, and honest to a fault. I am very proud to say that I have met and conversed with an honest man. I think it was Diogenes who went on a quest to find an honest man. Well, upon meeting Michael Badnarik, his quest would have ended.

Ron Beatty
ronbeatty@sbcglobal.net


Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!


Next
to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 290, September 26, 2004