THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 350, January 15, 2006
Pronounced "coo day tot"
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
PLEASE NOTE: I provide and will continue to provide my columns free-of-charge but, given that I am now fund raising in order to continue ifeminists.net, I would appreciate any donation you feel appropriate. Paypal donations (including through credit cards) can be made at the donation button at www.ifeminists.net or checks made out to "Wendy McElroy" can be mailed to 115 First St. #105, Collingwood, Ontario, Canada L9Y4W3.
Thank you in advance.
Some of you ran a column entitled "Are We Giving Away the Greatest Gift?" [last issue in TLEEditor] For those of you who did, the following should be appended to any archive you've kept of the column. If you want to include it elsewhere as well, you're certainly welcome to do so.
* * *
UPDATEAbout a week after this column was written, the student who claimed federal agents had questioned his request for a library book admitted that he'd lied. Prior to his admission (made only after the numerous details of his story failed, one at a time, to check out), the story was reported around the world. However untrue, the tale was both frightening andunfortunatelyall too plausible. Two weeks later, a report that federal agents were opening personal mail surfaced. In the wake of the "Little Red Book" fabrication, I delayed comment. Sadly, that story has turned out to be true.
* * *
Thank you for your assistance in helping me to do what I can to put this rumor to bed!
Yours for freedom,
I read the fine articles posted in TLE each week. I've even posted a couple articles myself. I read Lew Rockwell's website daily. Recently, there was an article there on the coup d'etat that the current Administration is successfully prosecuting. (pronounced "coo day tot")
The dictionary defines a "coup d'etat thus: "the sudden overthrow or alteration of an existing govenment by a small group." Based upon that definition, and the word "sudden," one might argue that what is happening is not a coup.
Rather, I would argue that this coup d'etat is continuing, but escalating ( the coup started with Lincoln, and has waxed and waned since then) in Mordor (the new name for Washington DC).
However, I will ask you all the question that I regularly ask writers who post at LRC: (they do not have an answer, perhaps you do)
What is to be done about it?
How does America end the coup d'etat?
The media won't help. They are the lapdogs of the coup, and bark when their master says to bark.
The Courts won't help. They are part of the Federal Government. Try to find substantive examples in which Federal courts have restricted the powers of the FedGov. Besides, even if they made a decision to actually uphold the Constitution, they have no real authority or power to enforce their ruling.
Congress (the Lords and Nobles) won't help. There is no stomach for an impeachment and prosecution of the coup players. Besides, Congress gave away their Constitutional authority in the war resolution, and abdicated their Constitutional duty and power to declare war. They continue to enact unconstitutional laws and spend money on unconstitutional activities. So, they're complicit in the coup.
The Executive branch (the King) is running this whole coup, so they won't reign themselves in.
Christianity in America won't even help. Try and find a church that is antiwar these days. Like Esau of the Old Testament, the church has sold its birthright to the State for a mess of pottage (tax exempt status).
Let's see....who does that leave to end the coup?
Other than the prospect of armed citizens....possibly militias from the states....actually traveling to Washington and taking into custody the persons in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the FedGov....how do you propose that America end the coup? Or do you propose the armed citizens solution?
Is the overthrow of the government by armed citizens what Jefferson was proposing in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote that it is the duty of the citizens to alter or abolish a government that violates the Constitution, and establish a new government?
I'll be very interested to read your response.
I believe that the coup is not over yet, but America is over. I do not believe that there will ever again be a constitutional republic form of government in North America.
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken,
Regarding the writer identified as 'acoustic alchemy'?
I have only this to say: Any remark regarding the thought imparting the ideas of 'narrow-minded' or 'ignorance,' should be taken to heart as an indication of description of the author of those remarks.
Or, in other words: I know you are, but what am I?!
Clearly, Acoustic Alchemy has suffered quite a shock when exposed to the, obviously new to him, views expressed in TLE. Perhaps TLE should batten down the hatches and prepare for a 'compensation for mental anguish and suffering' lawsuit. Until then, please continue to publish these 'narrow-minded' views as I cannot seem to find them elsewhereespecially not the airwaves, which are dominated by the bloviations of the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Dr. Laura Schlessinger and Rush Limbaugh. (The crew which every single day whines, moans, rages and apologizes for the criminal and totalitarian actions taken by our Dear Fuhrer, President Bush.)
Thank you for your incisive analysis and specific critiques. I look forward to more invective and bile disguised as... well, not disguised at all.
Struggle toward the light, in spite of its initial discomforts. The rewards will be immeasurable.
Re.: "Real Terrorists Rape Consumers", by Jack Duggan http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle349-20060108-03.html
Howeverand I know that you know this as well, we are all supposed to be responsible for our own actions.
Ergo, making excusesas you seem to be doingfor many, isn't exactly the best way to address the matter at hand.
If someoneand my parents damned near didspends themselves into debtor's prison, who's fault is it but their own? Lucky for them I had had the presence of mind to invest in land early on, and my own sacrifice of years paying for that was the only thing which kept them from being tossed out of their house and home on their collective ears.
I won't be unkind here, but there comes a point where decisions must be made regarding what's necessary, and what's fluff. When one is living close to the ground, one MUST make those important decisions which tend to help one maintain solvencyno matter how painful.
Sometimes you go without heat, and sometimes without food.
I can certainly remember that time when I was a child, where the only thing we had to eat was bread and milkif only because the week before my father had wanted a TV set.
After that, I'd often thought to myself: What's more important, feeding one's eyes, or nourishing one's body.
I will say that you've discussed only one side of the issue, while decidedly coming down on that side which exercised the least amount of self-restraint.
While there are indeed those companies which have induced consumer irresponsibility, that irresponsibility was expressed coequally by the willingness of the consumer to be mislead.
When I was in my formative years, my parents imbued me with this one thought: No one can make you do anything against your will.
Too bad they didn't follow their own advice.
In a truly Libertarian community of people, everyone takesand accepts, responsibility for themselves, for as long as they are capable of making rational decisions.
So, I hope you'll understand when I comment, that you 'seem' to be making excuses for some people, while at the same time lambasting those credit/lending institutions which have presumed the borrower had the intelligence and presence of mind to make all the proper decisions.
If I were to take you your missive in total? I'd say that what you're asking is that every lending institution undertake to assess the psychological profile of every potential borrower, such as to eliminate any person deemed unfitby whatever standard might be applied, however unfair that standard might be.
And again: I'm not unfeeling. But, responsibility for one's situation must lay firmly upon the shoulders of the one making the decisions.
Reply from Jack Duggan
My friend, look how many times above you used the word, "I."
Have you considered that the universe doesn't revolve around you? "Well. Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii overcame, so why can't everybody else? Becuz they're not as goooooood as I am, fer sure...!" Please reread what you posted to me and see yourself as others see you.
If you could endeavor to act as a neutral, third party, you might grasp that I was not "making excuses" as you characterize without foundation, but rather pointing out how a government "guideline" can cancel contracts unilaterally between third parties. When you sign a contract to use a credit card and pay the outstanding balanace at x-percent interest, by what rule of law can an unelected, appointed body void it and double your payments?
Instead of attacking the messenger and blowing your own horn, why don't you go after those in governmment who think ethics and constitiutional rights are situational?