THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 298, November 21, 2004
Give people what they want: more government!
Re: "The Death of a Libertarian", by Jay P Hailey http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle297-20041114-03.html
I am flattered to be quoted in the company of such comic geniuses as Groucho Marx and Rylla Smith, and I'm glad you like my idea that we should focus on liberating the culture.
But please, when you quote me, spell my name right. Just remember the old meme, "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'."
In a letter to the Libertarian Enterprise, Scott Graves said,
"If New Hampshire is the bastion of liberty that we have been promised, why was it the only state the Libertarian candidate was notNader got on the ballot in New Hampshire and the Democrats were fighting to the death to keep his name off the ballot everywhere they could."
Badnarik didn't make it on the ballot primarily for one reason: shenanigans on the part of two clerks controlling the petitions. Those clerks made sure by hook or crook to prevent the petitions from being processed. Even though NH law [was] violated, a judge let them get away with it.
Considering that this is the first time a Libertarian Party candidate did not appear on the NH ballot, and considering this is the first election cycle after the FSP vote to go to NH, I find it very hard to believe it's a coincidence!
It appears to me that perhaps fear of what the Free State Project represents, in tangible form, might have caused this outrage to occur.
The entrenched bureacracy does fear the FSP. Their mendacity with the Badnarik petitions proves it.
Also, the FSP did not say that NH was a bastion of liberty, merely it was the best opportunity for liberty in the future. NH has problems, but compared to NY? CA? IL??
It's easy to find reasons to not do anything, and to belittle other people's labors. It is far harder to get out of your easy chair, and go to work.
Dear Editor/Mr.Ed/Ken, and John,
Re.: "Reflections on Race, Politics, the Election, and a Conversation with Mom, or Whither the Democrats?", by John Ross http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle297-20041114-09.html
Awestruck: That's me!
That I am able to 'publish' in the same venue as the John Ross?
Back in 1997, when all hell was about to break loose here in the State of Washington, John Ross' novel Unintended Consequences seemed to have been timed exactly right for release.
Back then I was working for the Boeing Company, on the flight line in Everett, Washington, as an Aircraft Airworthiness Inspector.
The so-called 'liberals'they are actually communistswere out to take everyone's firearms away by dint of citizen initiative I-676, regardless what the Washington Constitution had to say about the matter. See: [very long URL]
I had my job cut-out for me. When I read Ross' novel, I knew then and there what I had to do: Buy as many copies of his novel as I could, and distribute themfor freejust as quickly as I got them, along with copies of the Second Amendment Primer.
I reckon that I purchased over 50 copies of both the above, and included a copies of "The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America" published by the CATO Institute.
In addition to that, I put together a 10 page (8.5 x 11) pamphlet using the state of Washington's own facts and figures regarding accident statistics, and personally had that reproduced by a local printer, and then spent a Sunday morningagain by myself, distributing them to my surrounding neighborhood, because my so-called pro-gun buddies at Boeing didn't think it worth the time to spend a few hours getting the word out.
I guess that when you're fat, dumb and happyon a union mandated paycheck, what's to worry about, eh?
I made three tripsall on foot, back and forth from my house, delivering those pamphlets, 450 in all, to the front door of every house I could reach. Election day was just a few days away, and I needed to make sure the word was out, at least to my local neighbors.
Needless to say, the forces of freedom won the daythen.
I'd like to think that I had made some impact. At any rate, the initiative was defeated by greater than 70 percent.
So, I'll reiterate: The Party of the Democrats isn't. It is instead the party of the communist, plain and simple. All one has to do is analyze what it seeks. Of course, the Republican Party is the opposite side of the same coin, but at least it pays lip service to what it is supposed to represent.
Lately though, I consider that Clare Wolfe is closer to the truth: To late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards.
And lastly, as a former Boeing boss told me one day: :"There ain't enough ammunition in the world to shoot the bastards with! So, about all we can hope for is that they will either shoot themselves, or they will see the light."
50:50. I can live with that!
And, John? That wasand still isone heck of a novel.
[Get your very own copy of Unintended Consequences by clicking on that link to Amazon.comEditor]
Re: "The Last Crusade", by Jack Boone http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2004/tle297-20041114-04.html
In regards to Jack Boone's assertion that legitimate freedom fighters in Iraq are thinking: "In 2004, our country is being occupied by a superpower, which wants to use our resources for its own ends, destroying homes and families with various laws and edicts. The government in charge of the occupation, located far across the sea, is doing all that it can do to destroy our culture, our society, and our beliefs."
Last I checked, the two parties opposing the US were the Baathist remnants (Baathists, btw, are a party whose agenda is fascist imposed socialist revolution) and Shiites with Iranian re-inforcements (talk to anyone in Iraq, they call the shiite insurgents "Iranians"). Neither group could be described by any sane libertarian as 'freedom fighters', unless that libertarians definition of freedom is the freedom to throw failed olympic athletes into wood chippers and rape their sisters, or the freedom to impose Sharia law on everyone, including non-Muslim Iraqis and Kurds.
The true freedom fighters in Iraq are the Kurds, who are allied with the US and have built an autonomous, productive, peaceful, and democratic society in its northern domain, and the Iraqi National Congress associated exile groups of various sorts who have learned about freedom first hand here in the US and are now exporting that back to Iraq.
Nor do I regard the freedom to disenfranchise any non-muslim, kill, assault, or steal from any non-muslim, to be legitimate (but such are entirely legitimate in most of the muslim world). Such is certainly not ZAP. Infidels do not rate as equals to such a degree that even most christian fundamentalists would reject acting similarly to pagans or atheists. That isn't ZAP either.
As much as Libertarians like Boone like to disparage USians who use groupist phraseology here, such thinking seems all to common in what passes for Libertarian foreign policy that vaguely says that "those countries" can do what they want, that "those people" can decide for themselves. I'm sorry, but I must have missed the point where Libertarians decided to abandon universal natural law as the basis for individual liberty and self-determination.
The US LP stance toward international issues of individual liberties are extremely childish and simplistic, to an even greater degree than the French would claim of Bush, and gives credence to those who claim that Libertarianism is a philosophy built entirely around the phrase "Fuck You".
Saying "it isn't our place to judge other cultures" is a complete leftie-liberal cop out (as much of a cop-out as the wasted vote fallacy). It is our place as libertarians to judge not just our own, but every culture, society, government, group, or individual human being for each one's respect for ZAP (it is especially the place of those who so enjoy imposing litmus tests and star chambers on fellow libertarians). National borders, according to Libertarian dogma, are illegitimate fictional creations of illegitimate governments. This is why we support open immigration. Why then do we say that our rights (or other people's) end at the nation's borders?
These Nationalist Libertarians, as I call them, are not as purist as they would like to claim. They are not for "all of your rights all the time", they are only for "all of the rights of some of the human race, some of the time depending on where they happen to be located". Put that way, it doesn't sound very libertarian to me. An International Libertarian is for "All of the rights of All human beings All the time, Everywhere."
Of course, this is when the next hypocritical cop-out surfaces, "Yes, but you are talking about attacking every despotic country in the world." Not necessarily with the force we saw in Iraq. Libya, for instance, has caved without a shot fired and is working toward multi-party elections. Individual liberty will spread like wildfire around the world when the cynical despots realize that the American people, the self-styled defenders of liberty, really are serious this time. That was the power of Ronald Reagan in putting down the Soviet Bloc: he didn't care that other people spoke German, or Polish, or Czech, or Romanian, or even Russian: he knew how to call a spade a spade and be determined about ending the soviet despotism.
Saddam called our bluff more than a decade ago, and killed several hundred thousand more of his own people before anybody here had the guts to call him out. Bush's father was a failure because he stopped short with his need to "be prudent". Bush, Sr. was not a Goldwater republican, who would have seen that "fanatacism in pursuit of liberty is no vice, moderation in defense of freedom is no virtue."
Now these nationalist Libertarians are talking more like Jimmy Carter bleeding heart liberals than like true defenders of liberty. Advocating militancy against any statism internationally is no violation of ZAP. Statists, being statists, initiate force against other human beings with every waking breath. It is no vice to advocate using statists at home to eliminate statism abroad. There is no virtue in pussilanimity or miserity toward the rights of one's fellow man, where ever they may be.
Michael Badnarik's poor election numbers, beyond a spiteful attempt to be a Naderesque spoiler (and draw the future enmity of voters as a result), are to be credited to the fact that too many US Libertarians, burdened by the history of Vietnam, out of which the Party sprang, just don't get these simple facts of integrity in the campaign for universal individual liberties, while so many Americans did get that truth following 9/11.
(NOTE: The author is a previously published TLE writer, an original Free State Project member, who has spoken around the country, on NPR, NHPR, and elswhere about the FSP, is actively involved in the secession efforts of Killington, VT, and other Vermont towns, to rejoin NH.)
I sent the following email to the Israeli Embassy in Canada (via its email address provided at its website) today and I urge you to do likewise:
Free Mordechai Vanunu!
Israel shall always remain a pariah among the nations of the earth so long as it continues its policy of vicious repression of heroes like this fine, courageous man.
I urge the government of Israel to immediately free Mr Vanunu, to permanently cease all harassment of him, and to eliminate all restrictions of his rights and liberty.
It is a horrible, historic disgrace that the state of Israel should pursue fascistic policies of repression of both the Palestinian people and Israelis.
The listing (at your website) of Israeli products is of great help to me: it tells me specifically what to boycott.
Charles Stone, Jr.'s piece on how perplexed he is at why people take offense when he acts offensive made me wonder again about Libertarians.
He writes in "Your Right Not to Be Offended" that decent white people going about their business shouldn't be hassled and badgered by airport security. Airport security he says should be going after those of "the Middle Eastern or Arab or Muslim persuasion." What an obvious and yes offensive expression of racism on his part this is.
Lest you think that this is a rant from some uppity immigrant let me say that I am a third generation American who was born and raised in Michigan. Except for when I was in the US Army I've never lived anywhere but America. Although two of my grandparents were immigrants from Syria and Egypt the appearance of the Massoud family is that of fair skin, light brown or blond hair, green or blue eyes, and who speak perfect English.
Mr. Stone would say that those of " the Middle Eastern or Arab or Muslim persuasion." should be hassled more at airports because those "swarthy" little brown people with funny names are the terrorists. Sad but true he implies racial profiling works because that is who the terrorists are.
But wait. Did this profiling of swarthy little brown people catch such foreign looking terrorists as Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Theodore Kaczynski, and Eric Ruldolf? Oh wait they were white Americans with regular last names. Never mind. My bad.
What Mr. Stone really appears to desire is to be able to express his racist views and conduct himself in a racist manner without being criticized for it. That seems to be his vision of freedom.
I'm OK with that too by the way. As a Freedomista myself I oppose affirmative action, hate crime laws, set-asides and quotas. What I don't support is Mr. Stone's call to make people like me whipping boys and scapegoats who are denied freedom and dignity so he can get through lines at the airport a little faster.
If Mr. Stone wants to act offensive he should not be surprised if people offended by it say so. Why they should hold back and suffer in silence because it offends him he fails to say. So don't bet on that happening any time soon Charlie.
The Libertarian Party seems uniquely cursed in the way it attracts people that are odd or nuts. Remember the senate candidate from Montana who turned himself blue drinking liquid silver? Or the school board candidate in California who was a Satan Worshiper and nudist?
I'll bet not many voters thought him the ideal choice to be in charge of the education of their children. Until the Lib's start acting more culturally mainstream I don't see much of a future for them in an America that is less and less white every year.
And Mr. Stone if you want to continue to write and publish your "views" on swarthy Middle Eastern types try this website: stormfront.org. They are always in the market for people like you.
"Chemical" Ali Massoud is a father, political theorist, apostate Muslim, small business owner, college graduate, crack rifle marksman, cat lover, shrewd investor, US Army veteran, and currently single. He lives in Michigan. To see what he means by "Anarchy," go here. To see why he is called "Chemical Ali" go here.