THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 336, September 11, 2005

"Freedom from Freedom Itself"

Letters to the Editor

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication


[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 E.J. Totty

Another Letter from E.J. Totty

Letter from Lady Liberty

Yet Another Letter from E.J. Totty

Letter from Lewis Carroll via E.J. Totty

Yet Again Another Letter from E.J. Totty


Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, and Jack,

Re.: "Superdome of Shame", by Jack Duggan
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle335-20050904-04.html

Quote:
"Heads should roll in Louisiana, for all those whose civil rights were violated on Sunday, August 28, 2005, outside the Louisiana Superdome of Shame."
Unquote.

Well, actually, no heads should roll.

What happened to those people was because they allowed it to happen to them. From the available news reports, no one was forced to go anywhere. An option were offered, and some exercised that; the rest played 'sheep.'

Let's suppose for a moment, that just everyone who wanted into the sports arena refused to be searched. What do you suppose would have been news reportage?

What if those who refused to be searched talked to the mass media reps who were on hand, and expressed outrage at the very idea of being searched?

Those people didn't do the latter, if only that they are willing to be searched. They were programmed to be the slaves that they are. They are sheep willing to be taken to slaughter.

You would cry 'foul!'

I would decry any such exclamation—especially in light of what I know now.

This story ain't going to get any better, largely because the people who should be making the difference aren't.

And, while I might empathize with your sympathies, I can't find myself agreeing with any such ideas that the Jackboots are at fault here, because as I've stated previously, it's the good citizens of New Orleans who allowed what you speak of, to happen.

Think of it this way: The Jackboots provided and excuse, and the citizens bought into it.

When you surrender your rights, you have no legal voice, and whatever protestation you might raise is no longer valid.

Without acquiescence, there can be no accord.

The prime reason this nation is so screwed up is that the vast majority of Americans are just like those who live in New Orleans: They won't take the initiative to do things for themselves. All the time it's 'government this' or 'government that.'

You get the government you deserve.

The cows came home to New Orleans.

May those cows finally come home to a lot of other places—real soon!

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Miss./Mrs./Ms. Liberty,

Re.: "So What's Your Back-Up Plan?", by Lady Liberty http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle335-20050904-05.html

Quote:
"My computer will almost certainly be resurrected with some patience and some parts. In the meantime, I have my back-ups. But what about the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined within it? Will it come back? And what, precisely, do we have for back-up if it doesn't?"
Unquote.

In my book, the term 'backup' may have either a diminutive or a really serious meaning.

For now, I'll go with the serious meaning.

Backup: Citizens possessing serious firepower, and who are willing to employ that firepower when push comes to shove.

Think: Switzerland.

Now, regarding the USC?

By inference of the thought that the document implies only those powers so spoken of, I could buy into that idea, but...

History has spoken a great deal about what's possible, and what's not. Largely, anything is possible, and as history has borne out, everything that's possible is largely so—regarding government perfidy.

So, what's your point?

Words on a piece of paper have no force to enforce themselves. Just ask the Brits about how they no longer have the right to keep and bear arms—in the face of both the Magna Carta, and the 1689 Bill of Rights.

Well, they do have the right, but it's against the law to exercise that right ...

Go figure.

Backup.

About the only time anyone has 'backup' is when they have their butt back up against a wall, and have no place else to run.

But then? I might be confusing 'backstop' with 'backup.'

The only real 'backup' any of us has is ourselves.

Or, to quote Thomas Paine:

"When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. "

That's just a neat way of saying that your children are not anywhere near as agreeable with your thinking as you thought they were.

Imagine: Several generations of Americans thought that they'd raised a flock to think just like them, when in fact they ended up thinking entirely differently.

American families were at one time into all kinds of hunting and fishing. Now? You're lucky if you even know of someone who knows of someone else who spoken with someone else yet, who even knows of a hunter—who's gone hunting lately!

Well, in ending this rant, let me say just this: If what you believe to be good, and virtuous, and proper, is what you have taught your children well—all without force or coercion, then you have generated your real backup, for they will bring every force to bear against a tyrant in defence of yourself—and themselves.

If you have not, then there is only that wall...

For what it's worth, I get the very real impression that most Americans just don't give a shit. And so, they'll put up with a lot of that before it all hits the fan, largely—I consider, if only because as Paine said: Virtue is not hereditary.

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Dear EJ,

you wrote:

>> "My computer will almost certainly be resurrected with some
>> patience and some parts. In the meantime, I have my back-ups. But
>> what about the Constitution and the freedoms enshrined within it?
>> Will it come back? And what, precisely, do we have for back-up if
>> it doesn't?" Unquote.
> In my book, the term 'backup' may have either a diminutive
> or a really serious meaning.
> For now, I'll go with the serious meaning. Backup:
> Citizens possessing serious firepower, and who are willing to
> employ that firepower when push comes to shove.

I agree. That's the primary reason I asked the question: I'm hoping more people will come to the same (correct) conclusion.

> Think: Switzerland.

I'd rather not. The latest news indicates that guns may not be much longer for the Swiss...

> Now, regarding the USC? By inference of the thought
> that the document implies only those powers so spoken of, I could
> buy into that idea, but ...

I've often said not that I want to go back to the Constitution per se, but that I want to go back to the Constitution as presented.

> History has spoken a great deal about what's possible, and
> what's not. Largely, anything is possible, and as history has borne
> out, everything that's possible is largely so—regarding
> government perfidy. So, what's your point? Words on a
> piece of paper have no force to enforce themselves. Just ask the
> Brits about how they no longer have the right to keep and bear arms
> —in the face of both the Magna Carta, and the 1689 Bill of Rights.
> Well, they do have the right, but it's against the law to
> exercise that right ... Go figure.

Yes, I know. But what more people have got to "get" is that the Constitution isn't a piece of paper. It's an idea that's written down on a piece of paper. And people have, for years, been willing to make great sacrifices for ideas.

I feel bad, frankly, for a few of the Brits. Unfortunately, the majority is getting exactly what it bought and paid for. That's why I've begun to make the point as often as I can that the majority has absolutely nothing to do with unalienable rights. If more people don't begin to understand that, though, we're headed the same direction as is Britain.

> Backup. About the only time anyone has 'backup' is
> when they have their butt back up against a wall, and have no place
> else to run. But then? I might be confusing 'backstop' with
> 'backup.'

Nope. I wish you were, but you're not. That being said, a few of us have back-up. We have each other.

> The only real 'backup' any of us has is ourselves.
> Or, to quote Thomas Paine: "When we are planning for posterity, we
> ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary. "

Hah. I should get that tattooed on myself somewhere.

> That's just a neat way of saying that your children are not
> anywhere near as agreeable with your thinking as you thought they
> were. Imagine: Several generations of Americans thought that
> they'd raised a flock to think just like them, when in fact they
> ended up thinking entirely differently. American families
> were at one time into all kinds of hunting and fishing. Now? You're
> lucky if you even know of someone who knows of someone else who
> spoken with someone else yet, who even knows of a hunter—who's
> gone hunting lately!

Well, I'm apparently a real exception to that. :-)

> Well, in ending this rant, let me say just this: If what you
> believe to be good, and virtuous, and proper, is what you have
> taught your children well—all without force or coercion, then you
> have generated your real backup, for they will bring every force
> to bear against a tyrant in defence of yourself—and themselves.

Unfortunately, most parents are no more responsible than their badly behaved children. Me? I have very well behaved cats. But I doubt they're going to be defending liberty much any time soon, either.

> If you have not, then there is only that wall...

No, again: I have you. :-)

> For what it's worth, I get the very real impression that
> most Americans just don't give a shit. And so, they'll put up with
> a lot of that before it all hits the fan, largely—I consider, if
> only because as Paine said: Virtue is not hereditary.

I don't know that the shit will ever hit the fan. Sometimes, you have to hit bottom before you can make your way back out of the hole you've dug yourself. My only real concern now is seeing just how deep the hole is getting.

Thanks for writing!

Yours for freedom,
Lady Liberty
ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com


Lady Liberty wrote:

> Dear EJ,
>
> ejt wrote:

—snip—

> I don't know that the shit will ever
> hit the fan. Sometimes, you have to hit bottom
> before you can make your way back out of the hole
> you've dug yourself. My only real concern now is
> seeing just how deep the hole is getting.

Well, I dunno. It ain't us that dug the hole we're in; it's those who've gone before us: Our parents, and their parents before them.

I've had more than a few very heated arguments over the matter of that bastardo called Roosevelt—especially the one who presided over much of WWII.

They looked up to him as a savior, and I told them in no uncertain terms that they were suckers from the get-go. That didn't go over too well as you might expect.

But what can I say? Who do you appreciate: Someone who gives you candy (at someone else's expense), or someone else yet who kicks you, and tells you to get up off your butt and make a REAL difference for yourself?

In the immediate sense, you'll likely appreciate the socialist who gives you the candy.

Retrospectively, you're likely to regret the 'easy money,' because what's easy now will chafe yer butt in days to come. Just ask all those 'old people' on 'socialist insecurity.' The largess of old has become the current federal budget stress—truth be told!

As the old saying goes: Nobody really appreciates the truth, unless they've already lived it, and by then it's most always too late.

> Thanks for writing!

'Twas my pleasure, Ma'am!

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


A treatise on Government

Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,

While perusing some 'words' by the late, great Lewis Carroll, I came upon the following which—I think—clearly, and definitely describes the relationship between a man/woman and his/her so-called 'government.'

In fact, the relatedness of this is almost too painful to relate...

From Through the Looking-glass, Lewis Carroll, 1832-1898

The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright—
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.

The moon was shining sulkily,
Because she thought the sun
Had got no business to be there
After the day was done -
'It's very rude of him,' she said,
'To come and spoil the fun!'

The sea was wet as wet could be,
The sands were dry as dry.
You could not see a cloud, because
No cloud was in the sky:
No birds were flying overhead—
There were no birds to fly.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Were walking close at hand;
They wept like anything to see
Such quantities of sand:
'If this were only cleared away,'
They said, 'it would be grand!'

'If seven maids with seven mops
Swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose,' the Walrus said,
'That they could get it clear?'
'I doubt it,' said the Carpenter,
And shed a bitter tear.

'O Oysters, come and walk with us!'
The Walrus did beseech,
'A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
Along the briny beach:
We cannot do with more than four,
To give a hand to each.'

The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But never a word he said:
The eldest Oyster winked his eye,
And shook his heavy head—
Meaning to say he did not choose
To leave the oyster-bed.

But four young Oysters hurried up,
All eager for the treat:
Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,
Their shoes were clean and neat—
And this was odd, because, you know,
They hadn't any feet.

Four other Oysters followed them,
And yet another four;
And thick and fast they came at last,
And more, and more, and more—
All hopping through the frothy waves,
And scrambling to the shore.

The Walrus and the Carpenter
Walked on a mile or so,
And then they rested on a rock
Conveniently low:
And all the little Oysters stood
And waited in a row.

'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings.'

'But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
'Before we have our chat;
For some of us are out of breath,
And all of us are fat!'
'No hurry,' said the Carpenter.
They thanked him much for that.

'A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
'Is what we chiefly need:
Pepper and vinegar besides
Are very good indeed—
Now if you're ready, Oysters dear,
We can begin to feed.'

'But not on us!' the Oysters cried,
Turning a little blue.
'After such kindness, that would be
A dismal thing to do!'
'The night is fine,' the Walrus said.
'Do you admire the view?

It was so kind of you to come!
And you are very nice!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'Cut us another slice:
I wish you were not quite so deaf—
I've had to ask you twice!'

'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,
'To play them such a trick,
After we've brought them out so far,
And made them trot so quick!'
The Carpenter said nothing but
'The butter's spread too thick!'

'I weep for you,' the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he sorted out
Those of the largest size,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
'You've had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?'
But answer came there none—
And this was scarcely odd, because
They'd eaten every one.

See: http://ingeb.org/songs/thesunwa.html

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,

Re.: http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2005/08/29/daily78.html?hbx=e_abd

Ya know? One wonders about stuff like the above ref'd article.

What the hell does Monsanto worry about with just a measly 1.0 percent of the corn and seed market?

Kinda reminds me of what J.D. Rockerfeller did when he couldn't win over his competitor's traders: Send in the henchmen to 'convince' those sellers to convert over to Stand Oil.

I don't know about anyone else reading this, but when a multinational corporation seeks to eliminate its competition by buying out just 1.0 percent of its competition?

Hell can't be far behind!

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


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 336, September 11, 2005