L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 331, August 7, 2005
"Stop meddling in other people's business"
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
I was reading a post in another forum, this fine Sunday. In the post, the poster stated, "All politics is a compromise between liberty and security." That got me thinking. Is it? Is it, really?
I'm not so sure. I am coming to the belief that accepting such a view is abandoning the argument for liberty by agreeing there might be a justifiable reason to decrease liberty in the name of security. Once you've agreed to negotiate away any of your liberty, it's just a matter of how much they can take away from youthis time.
I'd re-state the slogan as:
"All politics is a war on liberty, in the name of security."
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
Re: "Letter from Kitty Antonik Wakfer" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle330-20050731-01.htmll#letter4
I read the diatribe.
Then I went and read the bullshit:
And then? I asked myself: What idiot wrote that socialistic crap?
Any person buying into either screed, has either lost their mind, or never had one to begin with.
Takefor instancethe following from the first web site:
Right. No human needs rights.
I guess that the author of that statement considers it just okay for a woman to be raped at the hands of the state, in order that a child is given the "liberty" to be born, and thusly serve the state subsequently.
The "state" does have "meta-needs" now, doesn't it?
I don't know where "Wakfer" hails from, but it certainly isn't from a place called Liberty. One wonders if the current arse in high office didn't plant that one on the list just to sow seeds of dissent among the rest of us....
Just remember: You don't need a screw driver to put a a screw into place. A hammer will do just fine.
The message is plainly this: Liberty can be won in a moment of time, but it will just as surely be lost by the same amount of time when those who have it don't care a bit about defending it, and listen to the bullshit propagated by the likes of Wakferwho, not coincidentally, seems to not have an e-mail address.
Can't handle the feedback, I would guess.
In response to "What The Hell To Do Now?", by Alan R. Weiss http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle329-20050724-08.html
Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote in http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle330-20050731-01.html#letter4
I took a look at the "Natural Social Contract" at http://selfsip.org/solutions/socialcontract.html and with all due respect for the good intentions of its authors, the Contract is way too long and has way too much legalese detail. As such, it violates the principle of simplicity that is needed for understanding, and results in obfuscation of the underlying principles of individual freedom.
It also suffers from the same deficiency as the US Constitution, something that L. Neil Smith has written about, namely that it has no provision for enforcement, i.e. punishment of those who violate the Constitution (or Contract). Indeed, the Contract has mind numbing "definitions" (35 in all) about "Trial" and "Restitution" and "Peonage" (?!?). But the nearest thing to enforcement that I could discern was a (very long) section titled "B. General Stipulations Regarding Responsibilities and Dispute Settlement". I won't attempt to summarize it because it was too confusing and has too much detail to hold in my mind. It should make a wonderful career opportunity for any lawyers who are displaced from our current system by this Contract.
Please do not take this as a personal attack. I have committed the same errors myself. I have the same desire as you to improve the manner in which people conduct interpersonal relationships. But I think your efforts are as doomed as the effort I expended on a similar project, which I describe below.
It is always easy enough to criticize someone else's effort, but that leaves me in the position of proposing an alternate form of "social contract" or code of interpersonal relationship conduct among rational beings. Personally, I always thought that the "Live & Let Live" principle in John Galt's oath in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was sufficient for that purpose:
Realizing that interpersonal relationships are not always limited to other Objectivists, I took a clue from the final pages of Atlas Shrugged:
and I created the "Judge Narragansett New Constitution Project" (see http://tinyurl.com/aj88l), an attempt to create a workable, generic "Constitution".
After working at this for nearly a year, two things happened to make me abandon the project. I read Hologram of Liberty by Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T Party), which showed me the futility of starting with the old Constitution, and I discovered a document thatwithout contradicting itactually expanded on the "Live & Let Live" principle in Galt's Oath, but without all the legalese and other problems of the Constitution. (It also exemplifies the Keep It Simple principle). It is L. Neil Smith's Covenant of Unanimous Consent (click the link for a collection of essays about the Covenant or go to http://www.lneilsmith.org/utopian.html for the complete, one page Covenant).
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, which was created by a committee of Lawyers, L. Neil Smith's "Covenant of Unanimous Consent" actually fulfills the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's "Declaration of Independence". It has further virtue in that it is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and is even short enough to memorize.
I view the "Covenant of Unanimous Consent" as a means to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, because it is an agreement by and amongst Sovereign Individuals, signed by those individuals rather than some dead "Founding Lawyers", and it does not resort to mind numbing legalese or an authoritarian governmental structure.
I seek to associate with other Sovereign Individuals who agree to and are Signatories to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. By so doing, I can establishwith my own effortas much liberty for myself as is possible in my lifetime, given that I find myself in the midst of an increasingly totalitarian societynot unlike a Jew in Hitler's Germany, but with no "America" to which to flee.
The people in control of the government have no legitimate authority, but a revised, improved Constitution will not correct that situation. Moving to a place like Wyoming may be a means to reduce the number of authoritarian types in my immediate vicinity and to increase the number of liberty minded people in my immediate vicinity. Seeking and finding other Signatories has already enriched my life and made my life more free. I hope it will do the same for you.
Hi, Mr. Ed:
I will respond to just the most ludicrous point Mr. Irvin attempted to make in his LTE in response to mine in response to his proposal that all libertarians have a dozen children, which is: Assuming a life expectancy of 80 years, a woman will "only" spend one-quarter of that time in child-bearing.
Uh, in case you have forgotten, Mr. Irvin, the nine months of gestation are only the *beginning* of the time commitment. Each child will most likely need 18 to 20 years of care before he or she leaves home and is fully self-sufficient, perhaps more if the child is pursuing advanced education.
And assuming that the woman is a stay-at-home mother and the father is the one with the outside job supporting them (which will probably be true even if they live on a farm or ranch, because it does take money to raise a family), the majority of the hands-on work involved in actually raising the child will fall to the mother, at least while the kid is still not old enough to be assigned chores.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that each child needs 20 years of care... a nice round number.
Now, let's assume that a woman marries and has her first kid at 20 and her last kid at 40. She will indeed have spent "only" 20 years bearing children.
However, her last kid will probably leave home when she is 60. She will thus have spent a total of 40 years actually raising the kids, or 50% of her life expectancy.
If she marries and has her first kid at 20 and her last kid at 45, her last kid will leave home when she is 65. She will thus have spent a total of 45 years raising kids, or 56-1/4% of her life expectancy.
If she marries and has her first kid at 20 and her last kid at 50, her last kid will leave home when she is 70. She will thus have spent a total of 50 years raising kids, or a whopping 62-1/2% of her life expectancy.
In this scenario, by the time the last kid leaves home, she may well be dead or have a terminal illness. But even if she's still healthy after all this repetitive childbearing, she has only 10 years of her life expectancy left to do some nice, fun things for herself, if she can still remember how to do that.
So, I submit, Mr. Irvin's figures are way off regarding the actual total time investment involved in raising children.
This last scenario isn't as implausible as it seems, if you are going to actually have a huge family, and if you are going to have a couple of years' space in between each kid.
And I submit that having a whole bunch of children, as Mr. Irvin advocates, means that a woman may well have four, five, or six preteen kids all at one time, many of whom will still all be in diapers at one time. Maybe more, if she has a child every year.
And none of this even begins to take into account the wear and tear on a woman's body involved in repetitive childbearing.
I find it interesting that a man would advocate such a huge family and fail to take into account the actual time involved in raising those children, and also fail to take into account the wear and tear on that woman's body.
I've read that among the pioneers whom Mr. Irvin lionizes, a fair number of women died along the way in childbearing; and that by a time a man's brood of children were all grown up, he might have used up two or three additional wives as stepmothers.
Key Civil-Rights Laws Added to Gun List
Does a fine line separate some gun laws from other statutes? Four controversial laws in particular have long remained outside the unabridged guide, Gun Laws of America. The Tenth Anniversary edition however, just released by Phoenix-based Bloomfield Press, includes these laws for the first time. (Full details at gunlaws.com.)
Statutes that specifically protect constitutional rights, often called civil-rights laws, do not mention guns per se. Despite this, experts and customers have for years been asking why we do not include these laws, which they believe fit the guidelines of "Gun Laws of America."
These civil-rights laws basically criminalize private or governmental interference with constitutional rights. After our ten-year review, we are now of the opinion that these laws do merit inclusion, and should have been included all along. They are: Conspiracy Against Rights, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, Statements or Entries Generally, and Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights (USC: 18-241, 18-242, 18-1001, 42-1983). By way of illustration, the gist for the first one, Conspiracy Against Rights, on the books for nearly 60 years, is:
The plain language of this statute suggests that such criminal violations regularly occur with respect to the right to arms, making these laws quite relevant, and apparently under-enforced. We apologize for the delay.
[Backgrounder: Bloomfield Press is the largest publisher of gun law books in the country, founded in 1989. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. "Gun Laws of America" for police department and news-media review is free on request, call 1-800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call us to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, "It doesn't make sense to own a gun and not know the rules."]
Dear Mr. Ed/Editior/Ken, and Glen,
Re.: "Jean Charles de Menezes, RIP", by Glen Litsinger http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle330-20050731-02.html
Well, I dunno, because you see? It's like this: Neither Glen, nor I has the complete story on this matter.
From what I gatherusing UK news sources, the Brazilian bypassedjumped overthe gates used to collect the tolls.
Now, I don't know about Glen, but considering the circumstances? If someoneanyonejumped the toll gates, and ran towards to transport?
Well, I can't speak for Glen, but I'll say this much: I'd have pursued the matter post haste. If it were in my house, the little Brazillian bastard would have been shot dead before he got to wherever the hell he might have been going to.
You can fly through the air with the greatest of ease, but by god-damned, you'll land flat on your faceand dead as well.
At least that's how it is in my house.
That Brazillian prick was a god-damned thief, and he got what he deserved. If youGlen, want to make excuses for thieves, then you don't have a need to be writing here about it.
Rather, write the DNC. I'm sure they'll love you for it!
----- Original Message -----
A warrant has been issued for your arrest on this day of August, 1 2005. You are being indicted for 36 counts of conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, 14 counts of aiding and abetting terrorists, and 172 counts of manslaughter. You have 48 hours to turn yourself in, or we will raid the premises. We have been authorized to use deadly force in the event that it becomes neccessary. You have been warned. It is my pleasure to be the one to inform you that you will be spending the rest of your natural life behind bars. Your books Silent Death, and Home Workshop Explosives are currently illegal to sell or distribute under new antiterrorism legislation.
Forensic evidence has suggested that the bombings in London, England, on July 7th were conducted using formulas from your books. You are being charged for each and every individual's death in the London bombings, the Japanese subway attacks that occured so many years ago, and numerous other deaths that we have linked to your literature. Witnesses report that you have signed autographs to books ordered from your website encouraging them to manufacture methamphetamine in clandestine laboratories. We have intercepted hundreds of emails over the past 12 months indicating that you have knowingly furnished information to indiviuals who you knew were not using it for informational purposes as you write in your disclaimers in your books.
I sincerely hope you can find the best attorney on earth, for all of the good it will do you. Thanks to new legislation we have finally been able to indict you.
Special Agent, Kenneth Green
You might as well indict the US Patent Office, since that is where the majority of my book contents come from, and they are all available online.