L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 344, November 6, 2005
"It's the American thing to do."
Send Letters to email@example.com
Well, I suppose it's nice to know Kenneth Royce (Boston T. Party) is still thinking about me, roughly a year after we had a falling-out when he outrageously maligned the character of my good friend and creative partner L. Neil Smith on his FSW mailing list.
But he is right about at least two things: 1) Wyoming is the best state for a libertarian migration; and 2) his arguments for Wyoming were, in large part, what inspired me to move here.
I never joined the Free State Project for the simple reason that, as a libertarian, I thought the notion of having 5,000 strangers vote on where I was going to live is a stupid idea.
FSP did provide a valuable service in researching the 10 lowest-population states, and providing information allowing libertarians to choose for themselves which state would make the best home for those of us interested in migrating. You see, aside from ideology libertarians are a pretty diverse lot. Some of us would never be happy in a place like New Hampshire and others of us would never be happy in a place like Wyoming. And others of us would never be happy in either place.
Concentrating our numbers in one small population state is a meritorious idea. But the idea of people pledging to make a move but not doing so until 20,000 other people also pledged to do the same thing always seemed to me like a forumla for inaction. "You go first." Where, as marketing people might say, is the buy-in?
Movements don't happen by having people sign paper pledges. Movements happen when a core group of leaders decide to put their moneyor in this case, their homeswhere their mouths are. I have the greatest respect for those FSPers who have already uprooted and moved to New Hampshire, and I think that even if only a few hundred more join them, they will have a favorable influence in New Hampshire politics, because that's the kind of people they are.
Others of us prefer Wyoming, or Montana. I'm in Cheyenne now, Royce is in the process of getting to Crook County. And I know of a few dozen others, both part of FSW and apart from it, who are here now or are in the process of getting to Thermopolis, Casper, Cody, and other parts of Wyoming..
What Royce didn't explain in his letter is that his FSW group is not the only game in the West. There is an active Yahoo mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org, for people interested in Wyoming but not wanting to be part of Royce's group, and a similar Montana migration list whose name I don't know offhand because I'm not on it, plus a third list (W-A-L@yahoogroups.com) where both Wyoming migrants and Montana migrants share information and generally socialize. There is also a web-site (www.freewest.org) for a nascent "Free West Alliance" which will become an umbrella organization for libertarians in Idaho as well as Wyoming and Montana (the "Triad States"), and those interested in moving here.
Our organizational efforts, as well as Royce's, are dormant for the time being as key people busy themselves getting moved here and settling in. But in 2006 and 2007 we will be getting our "stuff" together, just in time to welcome FSPers who had preferred the West and will by then be released from their pledges, as well as anyone else who may have an interest in moving here.
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/ Ken, & Curt,
Re.: "Letter from Curt Howland" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle343-20051030-01.html#letter1
My dictionary defines the word 'tout' as:
Seeing as how I don't 'tout' anything, the first suggested heading in Curt's missive wouldn't work.
As clarification to the above statement, I call things as I see them, and I would never shove Liberty down another's throat. Far be it from me to cast the pearls of Liberty among those intent upon tyranny (recalling Geo. Orwell's 'Animal Farm' here, and available from Amazon.com).
I'm not always 'right' or 'correct,' but I always endeavor to be on the mark. Sometime I end up being behind the wagon instead of in front of it. In any case, I would never seek to 'pester' anyone in whatever aggressive manner.
But, if I detect even the smallest inclination to shove a view down another's throat by way of government, or to deprive another's rights because of what I perceive of as a specious, corrupt, or fallacious argument? You can bet I'll be asking lots of questions, andif needed, making abrasive remarks as well.
My chief perception is this: At any time someone attempts the use of government to achieve whateverat the expense of someone's life, liberty, or property, then they have engaged in nothing less than fraud.
And that includes using the might of government to either force a woman to bear an unwanted birth, or by compelling a woman to have an abortion against her will. The power to demand also connotes the power to deny. That power has already been exercised in these United States.
When you take away the ability of a woman to have a child, then you have of necessity aborted every child she might ever have had. This applies to men as well who were forced to undergo castration of whatever sort.
Those women and men have been denied of their potential.
Personally, I find the idea of abortion to be entirely repulsive. There are not enough words in whatever dictionary to describe my negative feelings over the matter.
But, I absolutely refuse to use my own thoughts in whatever way to compel another to concur in either thought, or deed, regarding what they would do with their own lives.
For anyone who would question my stance, it's called: Intellectual honesty.
As for the second suggestion? I don't perceive that I'm all that popular with the readers of the TLE, judging from a few 'letters' I've received of late.
I guess it must be my delivery...
So, I'll stick to remarking on the remarks made by others, in the occasional sense. And besides, I very much dislike deadlines.
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, and Alan,
Re.: "Turning New Hampshire into a 21st Century Powerhouse", by Alan R. Weiss http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle343-20051030-02.html
I read the articleentirely, started cheering, and then I woke up.
Alan, your dream won't work for one simple reason: The US Government, and it's wagon train load of law.
The firstand most importantaspect of law is the USC, under Article 10, regarding making treaties, etc., etc.
This is in regards to your remarks about Quebec.
Actually, I'd personally shy away from Quebec because it is so filled with Anglophobes and hoplophobes as to be a veritable nightmare in the making.
Imagine: Quebec blames the US for Quebec's problem with firearms... They outlawed them, and we get the blame for what follows?! Gimme a break!!
And you, of all people, want to make a treaty with that?
What will your response be when Quebec demands that as a condition of treaty, that all the good citizens of New Hampshire shall be summarily disarmed to prove to the government of Quebec that you are serious regarding trade?
Next, you seem to want to accomplish what can't be done: Overcoming every one of the onerous environmental, labor, and industrial regulations which themselves have made doing business someplace else all the more likely.
If there is no way to bypass those heinous regulations, then your dream will be nought but a daydream.
Just how do you propose to tell Uncle Deep Pockets that you aren't going to follow his cherished regulations? By attempting secession? Remember what happened when that was tried the last time?
Will you resort to asking the UN for help?
Three simple words: Frying pan, fire.
The US startedand controls, the UN.
Until you have a bona fide and absolutely workable plan in-place to overcome all of those concerns above, your dream is gonna stay a dream.
And before I forget, I'd like to remind you of one very important thing which you seem to have not comprehended: There are more communists born every day than any number of Libertarians.
That being the case, should NH become the economic powerhouse you dream of, you'll likely end up losing it anyway to those communists who are raised by parents used to having their hands out every time something goes wrong with their lives. You'll lose all of it by dint of sheer numbers alone.
Oh, and one last thing: How is it that you figure that your idea is going to have 'staying power?'
What if those communists from Massachusetts continue flooding into your new haven and demand a change in government?
What will you resort to?
I look at the whole of the matter in just this way: Ignore the government. Don't feed the animals.
Old Chinese saying: The dog you do not feed, does not hear your call.
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
Re.: Letter from E.J. Totty
Further to my lastabove, there's this:
Working the problem: It's not as simple as immigrants vs. natives, by Mason Stockstill
The problems may be complex, but the solution is actually quite simple: With no borders, there is no government, and with no government there is no troublesave that caused by the ruffian.
Ruffians cause trouble, borders, and by extension, they cause all manner of government.
Therefore, logically speaking, government = ruffians.
Do we need any other definition?
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
Re.: Plants and animals are in danger from behaving as if winter is already over, by Richard Gray
It's gonna get warmer.
It's gonna get colder.
It's gonna get warmer.
It's gonna get colder.
Good lord! You'd think the Brits would have something more to complain about than an Indian summer!
It must be all that endemic socialism: If you don't have an government authorized probe up your butt, you feel lost.
Or something like that...
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
It is, after all, still about religious freedom.
Actually, more to the point? Freedom from the tyranny of whatever religion. But, Guy Fawkes was a man willing to make a point.
It would seem that his capture, torture, and execution still have standing, foralthough many may not realize thisin celebrating his death, they also celebrate his life, and his motives as well!
For that, I present the following as a 'high five:'
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, and Lady Liberty,
Re.: "The Fall of Government", by Lady Liberty http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle343-20051030-05.html
I realize that you've taken to describe the essence of what you perceive as a problem.
But, what you've engaged in allowing others to define for you the parameters of the argument.
Back some time ago, when I was a subscriber to a discussion list, one of the things I absolutely decried was the effort of a debater to defineahead of time, what was to be discussed, and especially how that matter was to be discussed.
In your case, you have been relegated to discuss issues predefined by the ones who are in office.
Rather than discussing how a private school system would be the essential quality needed to ensure that children would indeed succeed, you have allowed yourself to be 'shepherded' into a discussion that completely ignores your own ideals.
Who cares about 'class size?'
If 'class size' was such a concern, then why is not that issue itself even being discussed by colleges and universities?
If you home-school your children, does class size matter?
Would you allow the government to demand that only one child at a time be schooled at home?
If 'class size' ever become an issue, it might indeed be an issue at home as well.
The issue of class size is a stalking horse: Beware of it.
And, if pay is such a bone of contention, then why are not public school teachers scrambling to get whatever state or other controlling entity to allow for competitive wages predicated upon actual performance, instead of upon a communistic ideal where performance of whatever level is rewarded by sameness of pay?
And, the bottom line has not a thing to do with the students.
Rather, it has everything to do with choice, as in the ability of their parents not being taxed to such and extent, that they would actually be able to either home-school their off-spring, or pay to have them educated in a private school that would have to be performance drivenor go out of business, a thing that never happens with so-called 'public schools.'
So, again, you've been redirected to discuss what seemingly ails public schools, rather than discuss all of their miserable failures, and you have allowed someone else to define the parameters of the problem, instead of discussing the problem itself: Government.
And finally, you entice others to vote.
If but a few people vote, and the rest contest the outcomeby not voting, they may declare that they were given no choice by their decision to not validate what was placed before them.
To wit: A vote should contain every essence available to anyone who will be affected by that voteincluding the option of not voting, as a means to expressing their respective dismissal of what was proffered.
If you don't vote, it doesn't mean that you don't care. Rather what it does mean is that you disagree, and there were no other valid options available to you. Therefore, and therefor, not voting is a valid means of expressing discontent with the status quo.
If enough people don't vote in an election, then that election should be declared invalid for all intents and purposes, and whatever government should be held in stasis until the matter is resolvedif ever.