L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 336, September 11, 2005
"Freedom from Freedom Itself"
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, and Jack,
Re.: "Superdome of Shame", by Jack Duggan
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 exclamationespecially 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When you surrender your rights, you have no legal voice, and whatever protestation you might raise is no longer valid.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 placesreal soon!
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
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.
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 soregarding 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 armsin 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 ...
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 hunterwho'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 wellall 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 yourselfand 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, largelyI consider, if only because as Paine said: Virtue is not hereditary.
>> "My computer will almost certainly be resurrected with some
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
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
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
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.
Hah. I should get that tattooed on myself somewhere.
> That's just a neat way of saying that your children are not
Well, I'm apparently a real exception to that.
> Well, in ending this rant, let me say just this: If what you
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
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 wrote:
> Dear EJ,
> I don't know that the shit will ever
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 Rooseveltespecially 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 stresstruth 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!
A treatise on Government
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
While perusing some 'words' by the late, great Lewis Carroll, I came upon the following whichI thinkclearly, 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,
The moon was shining sulkily,
The sea was wet as wet could be,
The Walrus and the Carpenter
'If seven maids with seven mops
'O Oysters, come and walk with us!'
The eldest Oyster looked at him,
But four young Oysters hurried up,
Four other Oysters followed them,
The Walrus and the Carpenter
'The time has come,' the Walrus said,
'But wait a bit,' the Oysters cried,
'A loaf of bread,' the Walrus said,
'But not on us!' the Oysters cried,
It was so kind of you to come!
'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,
'I weep for you,' the Walrus said:
'O Oysters,' said the Carpenter,
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
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!