L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 305, February 6, 2005
"An Unhealthy Obsession"
Re: "Disturbing News", by Ron Beatty http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle304-20050130-03.html
Despite what they may say, it seems to me that many professed libertarians still worship the state in their hearts. I cannot otherwise explain the double standard they apply to the actions of private individuals versus those of government officials.
As an example, in "Disturbing News", appearing in this publication on 30 January, Ron Beatty wrote:
Am I saying that the person who holds power in the US [Bush] is evil? /No,/ not yet.
Not yet? How much more blood must Bush bathe in before Beatty will consider him evil? Bush has killed between 15,000 and 100,000 civilians in Iraq, and thousands more in Afghanistan. What more does he have to do to qualify as evil?
I find it disturbing that, simply because he acts as a government official, Bush can commit murder on a scale literally a thousand-fold that of the most notorious "private-sector" murderers, and STILL not be considered evil... even by a "libertarian"!
Kevin S. Van Horn
In TLE 304, Jonathan David Morris attempted the difficult task of defining "libertarian". What he said was fine, but he left out the most important thing. The Libertarian Enterprise has printed the kernel of the definition for as long as I've been reading it. The Zero Aggression Principle (http://www.ncc-1776.org/whoislib.html), abbreviated ZAP, states:
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith
The more people we can convince to follow the ZAP, the more true liberty we will all enjoy.
Bill St. Clair
Re: "Letter from Jack Chleva" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle304-20050130-01.html#letter1
Hi. First, Jack Chleva may not have a copy of the graphic novel version of The Probability Broach as yet, or he might have seen the answer to his question is both Wyoming and Montana are locations favored by many Westerners seeking a free place to live. There is a note on page 164 about the Mountain_West_Freedom_Network@yahoogroups.com discussion list, which may also be found at [this link]
There are also very valuable discussion lists dedicated to the Wyoming Free State and other parts of the region. You can find these pretty easily, or just e-mail me for directions. Some of the parts of the West that are mountainous and seek to be more free are: Alaska, Yukon, northWest Territories, "British" Columbia and the sovereign clan territories of the Coast Salish peoples, Alberta, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Jefferson, as well as parts of California, Nevada, and Arizonathat I know about. I'm also aware of freedom projects in mountainous Mexico and Bolivia.
Michael's message indicates concern that there are no states in the north American Confederacy of Neil's novel. I think that's true, and a good thing. (It is not the Confederate States of Americathough that appears in many parallel universes.) It seems to me, based on the outline of the form of government described, to be a confederacy of individuals. Since the individual is the quantum unit of political energy, I count that a good thing.
Neil's been a bit under the weather recently, so I'll address the question from "Michael" on why there's no "states" in the "Confederate States of America."
The reason is, the country Win goes to is not called "the Confederate States of America," it is "the North American Confederacy." It says so in great big capital letters on page 45 of the graphic novel. The Confederate States of America never existed in the universe with Lucy Kropotkin, Ed Bear, etc. It is a confederation of sovereign individuals.
Hope this helps.
Reply from Michael:
Ok. I get it. I was wrong. Honestly, I don't know where I got the idea that it was called the CSA, in The Probability Broach. I'm sorry I asked now. Geez. I'm just going to accept that the "Confederacy" in the title NAC refers to each individual being a confederate to each other individual, and not a matter of confederated states. :-P
By the way, Someone send Neil my "get well soon" well wishes.
[Consider it doneEditor]
Now we know where we are:
Quote: "It's fun to shoot some people" and poked fun at the manhood of Afghans as he described the wars U.S. troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unquote.
I wonder: What would American citizens have to say about such a remark say, had the US been invaded by the British, French, and others from NATO, in order to 'quell' some 'disturbance'?
Of course: Fuck those brown people, right?
I have to ask myself just this one question: What if that arsehole had become president of the US?
The Dewey Camps have done their job.
Or so it would appear:
<< ... when told of the exact text of the First Amendment, more than one in three high school students said it goes "too far" in the rights it guarantees. >>
The following article contains links to official government documents describing the torturing of suspects being perpetrated by the Bush Administration.
It's disgusting and criminal.
James J Odle