L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 317, May 1, 2005
"May Day! May Day!"
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Lady Liberty,
An awful lot of people are going to be so intimidated by the requirements spelled out in Ref. (2) above, that they will simply do without in order to not be recorded in some police record somewhere.
Imagine that zero-dark-thirty knock on the door, followed by a battering ram, and black-clad storm troopers screaming at the tops of their respective lungswhile they burst into your abode, just because you happened to have bought too much cold remedy in a specified time period?
It was Lady Liberty's original postRef. (1), that piqued my interest, such that the Ref. (2) story caught my attention.
Now, consider the following:
Patent medicine in the US is a billion dollar a year business.
Cold remedies are right up there.
When business starts losing business, guess who's going to 'get the business end' of a very big stick?
The so-called 'law makers' are hoping that their idiotic tactic of making the citizens jump through more hoops will be effective in reducing drug crimes.
It didn't work with prohibition, but the elected dullards of the state of Washington figure that 'yet another man-made law' is going to stop things from happening.
The term 'money speaks' will have affect.
Hence, the subject title of 'Wanna Bet?'
To which Lady Liberty wrote:
Thanks for your note.
On Apr 25, 2005, at 1:35 PM, ET wrote:
Sad, but true.
> Imagine that zero-dark-thirty knock on the door, followed by
Actually, the other point I was trying to make in that column was that
it doesn't matter WHAT you do or don't do. If "they" want you,
"they've" got you.
Do you want to know the worst part? I recently read that cold medicine is rarely used for the manufacture of illicit drugs even by those inclined to do such things.
> Now, consider the following:
The pharmaceutical industry is very, very powerful. If they start losing money, things will change. But before that happens, chances are good the price of everything else will go up to make up for the losses.
> The so-called 'law makers' are hoping that their idiotic
I don't understand. Prohibition didn't work, but god(tm) knows the War on Drugs and the War on Guns have been successful in eliminating drug use and curtailing the criminal use of firearms.
(Hey, look, I either have to laugh or I'm going to start crying...)
> The term 'money speaks' will have affect.
Money... and power. And guess who's got all of both???
Thanks again for your noteI appreciated the news from Washington state. I suppose it's nice to know we're all in the same leaky boat...
> My only quibble is this: as Jeff Cooper has pointed out, in my
Russell, this is not only complete bullshit, it's dangerous bullshit, even if Jeff believes it. I once had a disagreement on this same issue, with one of those "almost a libertarians" you hear about, a police chief friend of Aaron Zelman's, who regurgitated the same lame theory.
Cops are armed when civilians can't be, often with weapons civilians can't have. I can't tell you how sick I get of seeing notations in catalogs like Brogade Quartermaster that certain items are for cops only.
Cops live and operate within a strict hierarchy, usually with titles like "sergeant", "lieutenant", "captain", and so forth. Most of them wear military-style uniforms, and an argument can be made that so-called "plainclothes" operations ought to be outlawed. Increasingly, they wear military battledress and carry military weapons.
Cops form a culture all to themselves, like professional soldiers, and usually have little to do with those who are not cops. They do call us "civilians". I never heard this term "little people" before. They also call us "assholes" and say that the public just consists of criminals who haven't been caught yet. I know because I was there at one time.
Yeah, I understand the theory that they're civilians, too. I repeat that it's bullshit. What they are, in fact, is an occupying military force, with strategic bases in every hamlet in the nationwhich is why they and their hangers-on lie to us and possibly to themselves about being civilians, too.
They are the very standing army that the Founding Fathers were afraid of.
And for good reason.
L. Neil Smith
Dear Mr. Holder,
I was very sad to read the news on your website that Philip Luty whose articals I very much enjoy, is facing prosecution yet again. There seem to be no recent reports about the case on the net. If you know anything about how the case is going or how the prospects look for Phil, any info would be appreciated.
Thanks and best wishes,
[As Philip sends me updates, I'll post them here. Right now we're looking to get his web site up and running again (Kate Graham, where are you?). You can donate to his legal defense fund at http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle313-20050403-02.htmlEditor]