Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 384, September 10, 2006

"In my book, I'm number one."

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from Terry Lyon-McCarthy

Letter from Bill of Rights Press

Letter from Lady Liberty

Letter from Rex May

Letters from E.J. Totty and Jay P. Hailey

Letter from Dennis Wilson

Another Letter from E.J. Totty


Dear Ken:

I forgot to mention that credit for the "One Dollar Gas—Vote Libertarian" graphic is due to my lovely and talented daughter, celebrated figure skater, underground novelist, and Purple Belt in Kenpo Karate, Rylla Cathryn Smith.

L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org


Dear El (if I may be so familiar),

Re: "A Snot In The Dark", by L. Neil Smith

"That explains why libertarian thought dominates the Internet and why non-libertarians frequently hate, loathe, and despise it. Talk radio is the domain of conservatives, where they can shout their critics down, or even switch the mike off if an opponent is making too telling a point. Liberals prefer television and the movies, where the principal medium is phony, maudlin sentiment, rather than rational communication."

Your last line above misses the more important reason Liberals prefer TV and the movies: even more so than Conservative talk radio, their prefered medium is 100% one-way.

Terry Lyon-McCarthy
terrylm@hotmail.com


Greetings! Both Jesse and I hope everyone had an enjoyable Labor Day!

We have some really controversial Titles on sale this week at Bill of Rights Press !

We all know that the Immigration issue is at the forefront of everyone's minds. You can't turn on the TV or open a newspaper and not find something addressing that subject.

We at Bill of Rights Press love controversy. . . and this issue is loaded with it!! And who better to turn to than our "underground" authors?

Domestic Enemies: La Reconquista:
Matt Bracken, author of the highly acclaimed fiction novel Enemies Foreign and Domestic has written a sequel! Taking place approximately 5 years after the end of his first book, Domestic Enemies: La Reconquista is set in a much darker America, which is becoming more of a police state following each new act of terrorism. The national economy is on the brink of total collapse, inflation and unemployment are soaring, and the cities are descending into ungovernable sinkholes of anarchy and ethnic violence.

The action in Domestic Enemies takes place between Oklahoma and California, but much of it occurs in New Mexico. After many years of an open-door policy to illegals and lax "motor-voter" registration, the stage is set for a bloody showdown between New Mexico ranchers who refuse to leave their ancestral lands, and the Milicia de Nuevo Mexico, which is comprised largely of former illegal alien immigrants, fighting for free land to be distributed as the spoils of victory.

Matt's second novel Domestic Enemies: La Reconquista is a cautionary tale about the Balkanization of America, which may result from our present out-of-control illegal alien invasion, combined with a failing national economy, and political correctness run amuck.

There it is. . . you keep asking us for more and more controversial titles. . . you can't get much more controversial than this!!

Domestic Enemies: La Reconquista retails at $19.95, but you may have a very difficult time finding it in your local bookstore. BoRP's Price is $15.95

Continuing with our Controversial Titles, try this one out for size:

Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America
Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America is one of the hottest sellers we have! The author, Thomas Chittum, is a military analyst who took a long, deep look at political, economic and demographic trends to conclude that America is headed toward either becoming an imperialistic police state in which there is little or no freedom or—more likely—collapsing into another civil war: Civil War II. This civil war will break America apart geographically, primarily along racial lines.

Utilizing similar events in history as a guideline, he has created a solid formula to determine where the United States is headed if we don't make a change. . . and very soon! In Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America, author Chittum shows where these lines will be drawn, by whom, how the government will respond and how you can prepare for it.

BoRP Note: The most disturbing part of Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America is that it was written ten years ago. Many of the phases laid out by Chittum have already come to pass and many more seem on the brink of happening any day, now.—Jesse

Once again, we do not shy away from controversy! That's half the fun of our jobs! Civil War II: The Coming Breakup of America is very, VERY hard to find. We've seen them for sale on some of the larger booksellers with prices from $39.99 to as high as $75, when you can find them. We have a very reliable source and are selling these at BELOW THE COVER PRICE! BoRP Price is $11.95

One Flat Shipping Fee continues!
Our flat $3.49 Shipping on all orders, regardless of size will be continuing for the foreseeable future. We're having great luck with it and our customers really seem to like the fact that, even if they order 15 books (or more) from us, they only pay $3.49 for shipping.

Thanks for looking and please visit our site. Remember, unlike those other guys, we destroy your order information after 30 days, don't sell our mailing lists to anyone and truly enjoy ourselves!!

Linda and Jesse,
Proprietors,
Bill of Rights Press
http://www.billofrightspress.com/


Jim Davidson wrote:

> Dear Editor,
>
> Lady Liberty's fine essay
> http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle382-20060827-07.html
> contained this very interesting passage:
>
> "Hard work, it seems, and improvements aren't enough
> for this fellow. No, he wants there to be a 360
> degree turnaround, and he wants it now."
>
> Let me please point out that turning 360 degrees
> would take one full circle, and leave one headed in
> exactly the same direction.

sigh Mr. Davidson is right. Colloquially, all too many people say "360 degree turnaround" when what they really mean (and what is really correct) is 180 degrees. I suppose I could pretend that I said "360 degree turnaround" because that's what many people understand, and that I personally knew better but was only trying to speak in a way that the most possible people would understand. The whole truth, though, is that that's only half right. I did know better. I'm embarrassed to say that the rest of the truth is that I just forged on ahead with what "everybody says" and what I'm sadly used to hearing without even thinking about it. Shame on me.

> Since looking around is never a bad idea in considering possible actions, it
> is my view that what would be wanted is more like a
> 900-degree turn, as some snowboarders and skateboard
> enthusiasts have tried to teach me, with the result
> of facing the *other* way and getting toward the
> reduction of all the bad we've got before us now.

That's one way of attempting to recover, and that I said what I meant. And it's such a good idea—the looking all around, I mean—that I'll likely use it in the future when I'm silly enough to say "360 degree turnaround."

> Really, any odd multiple of 180 works great. The even
> multiples are not so good.

Mr. Davidson is still right.

> Having more than a passing familiarity with the
> decrepit old man who wrote the letter mentioned in
> Lady Liberty's column, let me point out that he's
> badly misunderstood. Hard work is a positive value
> to him, and any improvements are a blessing.

LOL! For the record, please allow me to point out that I never once mentioned "decrepit" or "old" when I wrote what I did. The truth is that I agree with Mr. Davidson's principled stance then, and I still do. Even more importantly within the context here and now is the fact that I agree with his comment that "any improvements are a blessing." They are, however, all too often too small.

> However, in an earnest discussion of strategy with a
> fellow hard-working, condition-improving person, it
> was my intention to suggest ideas such as:
>
> (a) traveling less swiftly towards evil is not as
> good as turning around;

Agreed. And that's what we should all be working towards, though I don't accept that we must put ourselves in a position of "it's-all-or-nothing" where our efforts are concerned.

> (b) incrementalists are often pointed to by the
> enemies of freedom as indicating that mainstream
> views are for some restrictions, and therefore one
> may safely dismiss us free market extremists;

Ouch. That is, indeed, a danger. But the enemies of freedom gained so many blind followers by doing exactly the same thing. Those who are easily swayed can just as easily move toward freedom if they're not shocked into a stubborn refusal to budge. "I already know what I think; don't confuse me with the facts!" is a mantra that can only be countered incrementally (and unfortunately sometimes not at all).

I should add here that, in all fairness, those who are too easily swayed aren't going to make the best allies for obvious reasons.

> (c) thesis-antithesis-synthesis suggests that taking
> an extreme position is more likely to result in a
> shift toward a workable moderation than taking a
> very mild one;

No. I suggest that taking an extreme position, while often admirable in the living of one's own life, will serve as a shock at best to the systems of those less responsible, courageous, patriotic, or your-own-pro-freedom-adjective-here persons. And shocks tend to immobilize many, or worse, to engender retreat. Unfortunately, retreat in this case is 180 degrees (See? I'm not entirely mathematically challenged!) from the direction we're trying to go.

> (d) everyone has choices to take, some of which are
> more effective than others;

Indeed.

> (e) truly effective writers are a rare blessing, and
> Lady Liberty is one of these, so seeing her great
> abilities put to more effective use would be a great
> treasure;

Thank you, Mr. Davidson, for your kind words. I still believe, however, that I'm not really writing exclusively for people like Mr. Davidson. He's already figured out that freedom—despite the hard work often involved and the sacrifices that must sometimes be made—is going to be the bellwether for his own life decisions. I don't need to gently nudge him to question big government and its self-stated altruism. And he certainly doesn't need any prodding from me or anybody else to get off his couch and DO something. He's far beyond that. In fact, even in the world of those who are already genuinely pro-freedom, he's well ahead of most.

I sincerely hope that Mr. Davidson thinks there's some possibility that I might be a truly effective writer when it comes to doing some of that gentle nudging and poking some of those little holes into much-beloved but erroneous belief systems in connection with those folks who are still of the opinion that the government is here to help them. If I give the already pro-freedom men and women a bit of a laugh now and then, or if I bolster their own commitments a little on occasion, or if I come up with some metaphor or argument they later find helpful in their own lives, that's icing on the cake.

> (f) as we are about to see violent rebellions and
> brutal repression resulting in vast rivers of blood
> being shed here, in our country, near our homes,
> while our children look upon these events with their
> own eyes, it might be well to share some thoughts
> on why some of us choose to act as we do while we
> are yet free to do so.

Although I hate to say it because I hate the very idea of it, I'm deeply concerned that Mr. Davidson is once again right.

I've tried in many of my essays to convey why I do what I do because I can't believe that my own logical steps from ordinary citizen to pro-freedom activist make me all that unique. If certain facts convinced me, and if certain arguments swayed me, then I can only hope that laying those facts and arguments out in what I hope is a sensible format will act to convince and sway others.

> It remains my regret that in my candid letters and
> essays, I have been unable to convey any of these
> ideas, however fervently it has been my wish to do
> so.

I don't think that Mr. Davidson has much, if anything, to regret here. I can't speak for others, of course, but I can say that even when I've disagreed or been in some way disturbed by something he's said, he's never failed to make me think. (And if it matters to him, I'll also say that I've rarely disagreed with him.)

> Happily, something has come up which promises to
> take me away from writing for some weeks to years.
> While my desire to express my thoughts now and again
> may overwhelm my other drive to fulfill my duties,
> the good news is that the working conditions won't
> allow nearly as much output. The truly happy news
> is the nature of this project, into which I now
> expect to disappear.
>
> Those of you not familiar with Media Net might like
> a peek at the future promise it holds. If so, the
> best thing to do is find a copy of
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553380966
> Neal Stephenson's book on the subject.

I wish Mr. Davidson every success in his new endeavor, and sincerely hope that whether we see less of him here or not, he also continues in some way to write and talk in such a way that he doesn't stop making other people think.

Best—

Yours for freedom,
Lady Liberty
ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com


Re: "Will the REAL Lady of Liberty please raise a Lighted Torch?", by Dennis Lee Wilson

A couple of points:

Emma Lazarus certainly wrote a persuasive piece about open borders for the US. Interesting that, as a Zionist, she took an absolutely contradictory position concerning other borders. Walt Whitman would have understood.

Also, as a general rule of thumb, I find that people who spell America with a 'k' and who call everybody who disagrees with them 'fascists' are hardly libertarian, but come from somewhere quite different on the spectrum.

Rex May
rmay@mac.com
See some of my cartoons at:
http://homepage.mac.com/rmay/
Graphic novel I helped write at:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/roswell?page=1


Jay,

Re.: Letter from Jay P. Hailey in the last issue.

Quote:
But right now the majority of the people I speak to think Human Beings are too stupid and/or evil to be trusted to their own devices without something to control them. Most people have a very pessmistic view of their countrymen, their neighbors, their friends, their family and ultimately themselves.
That's the inertia we're working against. That's the darkness we're trying to throw some light into.
Shredding a pro-liberty fellow traveller on minor points of semantics ain't gonna get us there.
Unquote

I would argue your point only on the following:
At any time someone argues for keeping the current status quo (which isn't, because it—the status—constantly gets worse), I find that I must 'speak up.'
Dennis Wilson appears to ague for keeping the current authority for government to exist: The US Constitution.
As we are witness to the prevarications, perfidies, and blatant violations of trust by those 'elected/appointed' to public office, then the document itself is a farce, and the powers so 'enumerated' therein are nothing less than the excuse to run roughshod over the rights of the citizens.
But you make a good point with most people not trusting their fellows.
I don't trust them either; but then again, I trust no one.
Most other people desire to use force against those neighbors through constituted government: They were raised to believe that that is the only way to deal with others, because they were raised to believe in the constituted government lie: Only constituted government can be trusted.

I desire to make a salient point here: In no case—in the USC, is a punishment to be meted out to whatever elected/appointed official for willfully violating his/her oath of office. Rather, such a thing is 'relegated' to the congress to address by way through whatever law—if any, in pursuance of what is spelled out. This embedded equivocation is the genesis of all that is wrong with the USC.
Had the founders simply stated: "If you lie, cheat, steal, or cause any harm to come to any anyone—anywhere, at any time, under color of law, your arse is out to hang, and swing in the wind until your bones fall to the ground piecemeal," then likely it is we would not be having this conversation.

Dennis—it would seem, desires to keep the document around, and dance with the devil in its details, while attempting to 'fix' what's wrong.
If what is wrong was intended to be so—from the start, then no amount of effort will fix the matter. The effort would be not unlike attempting to change a cup full of poison into the elixir of life.
You cannot partake of the former, and expect anything of the latter.

What we engage in here, is not Libertarians 'eating their own.'
I can't begin to tell you often I was chided by fellow thinkers for my skewed thinking: back some time ago, that thinking was skewed by the inculcated mindset of government-think. I'd been raised in large part to believe that the US Constitution was the very best Americans could achieve. And having spend the better part of my life—back then, in the USN, that thinking was imbued with faulted premises regarding the ideas concerning individual liberty.

Not a few times was I taken to task by the likes of J.Neil Schulman on the Noban discussion list—as other places.
I don't consider him to be 'exactly right' on all the issues. But, he did provide a most excellent correction course to my thinking, on many things. A few of those things were: Question everything, accept nothing on face value, and just because something has been around for a long time, it does not follow that it is right. It's not that I didn't know those things, it's just that I had allowed them to fade into the background.
Sometimes, having your feelings hurt is just the right thing to cause you to reevaluate just where it is you think you stand.
I was standing in the middle of a pile of excrement, and calling it freedom.
Now I know better.

You continue:
Quote—
Running everyone off until there are only the 4 most ideologically pure left to talk to ain't gonna get us there.
If Liberty isn't a big tent-then isn't it contradicting itself?
Unquote

Well, let me say this about that: Only the strong survive; only those willing to go the distance will get there.
And, in the matter of 'tents?'
I dislike the whole idea of anything which implies a degree of 'confinement.'
A 'tent' bespeaks of boundaries, limits, and exclusions.

Individual liberty, on the other hand, speaks of no such limits, as in the main individual liberty requires nothing of anyone, save that they don't initiate force against another person—in whatever way.
But, I do catch the gist of your thoughts otherwise, and merely take exception with your metaphor.

Insofar as Dennis is concerned: I do not take exception with him, but rather with his words. He—it would appear, seems to think that fixing what really isn't broken, is going to make things better. But that flies into the face of his own words: "To vote for a candidate is initiatory force."
Virtually all of constituted government requires—as a condition of existence, the initiation of force.

And finally:

Quote:
I have real problems when it turns into "And you're not Libertarian Enough."
You know what? I am a Liberty lover if I say I am. I am on this side if I say I am. That's not for you to define or determine or decided.
Unquote

If everything hangs on definition, then would it be fair for an inveterate Marxist to declare s/he is a dyed-in-the-wool libertarian, and be taken seriously? I will condition that with the declaration that a Marxist willing to live his/her politics, would do so without resorting to the use of any force against anyone else in pursuance of his/her life objective—might be considered libertarian.
Actions—as that old saying goes, speak louder than words.

Quote:
Just as I realize that—I realize that this is really the only viable criteria to be a Libertarian. Anything else, any litmus test or Libertarian Purity Test just gives too much power to whoever is making up the test and that contradicts itself.
Unquote

Would it be too much were I to declare that the only real litmus test is that which is predicated upon the fact of a person's actions regarding all others?
It is MY declaration, that any person declaring him/herself to be a Libertarian, must of necessity exhibit that which is the most quintessential of the sine qua non of Liberty: Self-government, and no thing else. If you cannot abide, then you simply cannot be what you proclaim to be.

I very strongly desire to be left alone, and to suffer ONLY at my own devices.
But, there are—it would seem, others here and about, who have a very different idea. They desire to resurrect the soul of a lie long dead, and inflict its substance upon the rest of us—in the name of being free. They are not, and they can not ever be so—so long as they believe and act as they do. But their pretentiousness is more damning—and damaging, than the tyrants they keep voting for, since their actions sustain, nourish, and promote the lie.

As with Diogenes, I seek the truth, and an honest man.
I have discovered truth; but rarely have I met an honest man—if only it is that most men are made into thieves, liars, cheats, and murderers by that which duplicitously enables them to be those things, and then condemns them for being just that: Constituted government.

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Jay P. Hailey Replies

E.J. Totty writes:

> Your latest in the TLE
> I would argue your point only on the following:

Hey Mister Totty

I read your feed back, thank you very much.

What I took from your message was basically the Minarchist versus Anarchist debate.

My orignal reply was restatement of the Incrementalist versus. . . oh, er (Revolutionist?) Debate, and I was coming down as an Incrementalist.

Now in the hard core anarchist POV you're either a statist or not. The answer is to get rid of Statism—at all period.

I get that. I am not sure I *agree* with it. I frankly, am not convinced that Humans could live in a non-state society or culture without making up a state for themselves.

In any case—this is a very serious philosophical divide.

The question is—are you willing to tolerate someone who doesn't agree with you? What if I come out and say "Anarchy won't work. Humans aren't built that way. But I like Liberty and I want to increase it."

Despite the fact that this could be considered a self contradictory statement from the Hard Core anarchist POV—can you live with some one who really feels that way?

Is it possible? Is it desirable—to disagree with someone who espouses this idea without telling me "You're not Libertarian enough!"?

Might I be a larval Anarchists?

About the Tent comment—Once upon a time I left a supposedly Libertarian E-mail list after that sort of semantic nit picking. We have plenty of ideas to bat across the floor without playing that sort of game. IMHO.

Now—If I am a Minarchist, (Alternate days) it would be safe to say that I am on a different philosophical basis than an Anarchist. Now, as a Minarchist—I oppose the federal reserve Bank and Income taxes— as an example—the instruments of the revolution of 1913.

Now because we oppose those from Hypothetically different philosophical bases ("No government is legitimate", versus "that's too darned much!") Is our opposition to those institutions compatible? are we going in the same direction? Can we work together until our roads diverge?

Can we discuss where our two philosophies diverge and see if there can be a meeting of the minds?

Because to me, frankly you sound like a Fundie Anarchist—someone for whom there is no half way and no shades of gray. Anarchist or Statist, pick one and then be it.

I am not going to slide into either of those two boxes. They do not fit me well.

And here we are again in one of the inevetible arguments one see when one shouts "Individualists Unite!":-):-):-)

Thank you for your e-mail, Sir.

Jay P. Hailey
jayphailey@yahoo.com


Another Reply from Jay P. Hailey

> Your latest in the TLE
> Would it be too much were I to declare that
> the only real litmus test is that which
> is predicated upon the fact of a person's actions
> regarding all others?
> It is MY declaration, that any person declaring
> him/herself to be a Libertarian, must of
> necessity exhibit that which is the most
> quintessential of the sine qua non of Liberty:
> Self-government, and no thing else. If you cannot
> abide, then you simply cannot be what you proclaim
> to be.

Who died and elected you the arbiter? There are two things in that paragraph above—

1) There are a set of characteristic actions and attitudes which mark one as a Libertarian

2) EJ Totty gets to publicly declare if you have violated any of these characteristic sets of actions and/or attitudes.

I agree with 1—in your example, if a raving socialist showed up and said "I'm a Libertarian!" and the proceeded to reason from Socialist assumptions—then I wouldn't give a lot of creedence to this persons point of view. He or she would damage his credibility.

But I don't think I have any standing to say "You can't call yourself a Libertarian!"

Do you? I mean I can say "Boy, that statement seems to proceed from the idea that the State is superior to the Individual, and I can't agree with that." But what gives me.. the authority to say "Get out of here and don't call yourself a Libertarian AGAIN!"

In the final analysis, You can tell who's walking the walk and who's just talking the talk. But I don't consider myself qualified or entitled to act as any sort of a gate keeper.

If you do, I'd like to hear why you think so.

Jay P. Hailey
jayphailey@yahoo.com


E.J. Totty Replies

Jay, & Ken,

My remarks interposed below:

> At 3:46 AM -0700 9/5/06, Jay P. Hailey wrote:
>> (I said):
>> It is MY declaration, that any person declaring
>> him/herself to be a Libertarian, must of
>> necessity exhibit that which is the most
>> quintessential of the sine qua non of Liberty:
>> Self-government, and no thing else. If you cannot
>> abide, then you simply cannot be what you proclaim
>> to be.
>
> Who died and elected you the arbiter?

No one that I know of! All I stated upfront were the essential facts of just what a Libertarian is. No equivocation here!

[--snip--]
> But I don't think I have any standing to say "You
> can't call yourself a Libertarian!"

Why not? If someone is a liar, do you not have the right to publicly declare of the matter —especially if you know what the truth is?

> Do you? I mean I can say "Boy, that statement seems
> to proceed from the idea that the State is superior
> to the Individual, and I can't agree with that." But
> what gives me.. the authority to say "Get out of here
> and don't call yourself a Libertarian AGAIN!

You'll forgive me—I hope, for asking: Who told anybody "Get out of here and don't call yourself a Libertarian AGAIN!"
And, once more, if you proceed to prognosticate upon liberty with the idea in mind to exert some form of control over your fellows, then you certainly cannot be espousing liberty. Maybe a severely diminished form of that, but certainly not liberty.

> In the final analysis, You can tell who's walking the
> walk and who's just talking the talk.

Your own words speak for you.

> But I don't consider myself qualified or entitled to
> act as any sort of a gate keeper.

Neither do I. However, don't expect to me to take you seriously—should you happen to refer to yourself as a Libertarian.
You simply cannot take the bumper off a Libertarian, and put it on (your brand of political car here), and then proceed to call it Libertarian.

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Another Reply from Jay P. Hailey

> Your latest in the TLE
> But you make a good point with most people not trusting
> their fellows.
> I don't trust them either; but then again, I trust no one.

Interesting. What could possibly make a stateless society work if all people, most people or even a sizable minority of people were not trustworthy?

The principles in the Bill of Rights are predicated on trusting people to have and excercise adult judgement most of the time—about ideas, about guns, about their property.

Anarchy, even more so is pedicated on the idea that most people are trustworthy.

My best friend—his main objection to Anarchism or Minarchism is that somewhere out there, nearby is someone who is so stupid and evil, that if he knew the full weight of the state wasn't restraining him, that evil moron would jump right up and start raping, pillaging and burning.

My best friend insists that, without men with guns and badges, the world would be set ablaze in an orgy of destruction.

I pointed out that there were no cops in evidence the last time we had that discusson—and further that the dumb ass college students, who specialize in loud but incoherent music and durnken scenes of melodrama out in the street (Our own not-so-private soap opera while we sit on the porche debating politics. . . Lifes GOOD!) anyway, while no cops were in evidence—these morons were not, in fact pillaging, raping or buring us at that moment.

My friend replied that it was the awareness of heavy consequences that prevented them from murdering us right there.

What a depressing and Cynical View!

"But" I then point out "Why is it okay to let these guys vote? What if they get together and vote that all cops have to run to the county line and count to 100? If they're not trustworthy with guns or just running loose without the threat of massive retaliation, why do we trust these people with ballots?"

"That's different." My best friend says, but he never gets into a lot of specifics there.

In the end of these conversations I often wind up calling my best friend a Fascist. (And he really enjoys that, believe me.)

Because if most people are incompetent—then any random sampling of people is also incompetent. And picking people more or less at random to perform socially desirable tasks is bound to end up with incompetent people doing incompentent things.

But in an anarchy, anyone doing much of anything near you is effectively randomly picked. Anarchy means trusting people not to shoot at you, run you down with vehicles or start massive fires which burn your stuff or kick in your door and start raping you.

Sure a very small minority of people is going to come up with the amazing stupid idea that this is a good way to behave—and they'll get shot— but it this is more than a tiny, teensy weensy minority, then anarch-topia comes apart in a wave of violence.

And the ones who survive that will be the ones who band together into units for mutual defense—Hello! States!

Individuals are wonderful. I love them. But in a fight between one smart man filled with character and ten morons, my money is on the morons.

In order to believe that Liberty could work—in order to believe that Anarchy could work— I have to believe that most people don't want to burn and rape and pillage, at least most of the time.

If people are stupid and prone to violence without the threat of massive retaliation—then Liberty cannot work and Anarchy could never ever work. Human social organization would require some way to enforce order and order would have to come from the minority of smart people.

We'd have to design a way to filter for smart, ruthless people who don't mind stomping individuals here and there if it means the trains run on time. The vast majority of morons, wanting to be free from rape, pillage and burning would support these smart guys and their agents. After all—if it means most folks get to sleep tight in a safe place, then it must be worth it, if it costs a few innocent folks now and again.

But. . . . What might this Moron-ocracy look like? Hmm.

----

In an earlier age, a cranky "I hate you all" Anarchist could run out into the woods and live by himself. These days you can't escape the herd. Humans are every where and we affect everything. Not to mention Nuclear Bombs. If humans contrive a way to go Easter Island with the whole world there will be no escape. (Unless there's a good space infrastructure in place and even then it wouldn't be any fun.)

If you can't trust the vast majority of human beings—then eventually you'll find yourself being a fascist. There's no way around it. For Earth Itself and Cranky Anarchists standing on it, the herd must be controlled or it'll go over the cliff and take everything and everyone else with them.

I can't get behind that point of view.

Liking Jay was actually a struggle for me. A Hard won battle. And if I truly like myself, I cannot entirely dislike you. If I can trust myself, mostly, then by extension, I trust you.

I think we're made of better stuff than the cynics would have us believe.

And so I think Liberty can and will work.

I dunno about Anarchy— But if we can stop the headlong stampede into Big Brother Ville, I am not averse to giving it a shot and seeing what happens.

Jay P. Hailey
jayphailey@yahoo.com


E.J. Totty Replies

Jay, & Ken,

My remarks interposed below:

At 4:19 AM -0700 9/5/06, Jay P. Hailey wrote:
>> But you make a good point with most people not trusting
>> their fellows.
>> I don't trust them either; but then again, I trust no one.
>
> Interesting. What could possibly make a stateless society
> work if all people, most people or even a sizable minority
> of people were not trustworthy?

That's illogical—especially in light of what we know about people in general. Trust is earned, not published.
I would argue effectively, that constituted government inspires people towards acting against their fellows, simply for the fact of laws.
There is an equation that you should become familiar with: Liberty = 1/government

> The principles in the Bill of Rights are predicated on
> trusting people to have and excercise adult judgement
> most of the time—about ideas, about guns, about their
> property.

Actually, no. You are most incorrect in that assertion.
Rights are in no way predicated upon any idea of trust.
And, relegating those rights to a piece of paper and hoping everybody will behave properly, is tantamount to having all of those rights diminished over time by those who declare that we are not 'adult enough' to manage our own affairs without some kind of hideous government intervention.

> Anarchy, even more so is pedicated on the idea that most
> people are trustworthy.

Again, no. No condition of existence determines the actions of anyone.

> My best friend—his main objection to Anarchism or
> Minarchism is that somewhere out there, nearby is
> someone who is so stupid and evil, that if he knew
> the full weight of the state wasn't restraining him,
> that evil moron would jump right up and start raping,
> pillaging and burning.

And just as likely he would meet a quick and ignominious end as well!

> My best friend insists that, without men with guns and
> badges, the world would be set ablaze in an orgy of
> destruction.

Hmmm. Maybe you should introduce him to a certain set of people with 'guns and badges' who have done more harm in this world than any number of petty criminals? You know—government men.

[--snip--]
> My friend replied that it was the awareness of heavy
> consequences that prevented them from murdering us
> right there.
>
> What a depressing and Cynical View!

So, what's your point here? Are you for government—or freedom?

[--snip--]
> In the end of these conversations I often wind up
> calling my best friend a Fascist. (And he really
> enjoys that, believe me.)

Or, maybe he's just pulling your leg?

> Because if most people are incompetent—then any
> random sampling of people is also incompetent. And
> picking people more or less at random to perform
> socially desirable tasks is bound to end up with
> incompetent people doing incompentent things.

Classic case: Constituted government.

> But in an anarchy, anyone doing much of anything near
> you is effectively randomly picked. Anarchy means
> trusting people not to shoot at you, run you down
> with vehicles or start massive fires which burn your
> stuff or kick in your door and start raping you.

I perceive that you are 'missing' something: What you describe above is happening now anyway, except that in most cases, the people have either been disarmed and can't do anything, or they have disarmed themselves because they have been brainwashed into believing that the cops will save them.

> Sure a very small minority of people is going to come
> up with the amazing stupid idea that this is a good
> way to behave—and they'll get shot— but it this
> is more than a tiny, teensy weensy minority, then
> anarch-topia comes apart in a wave of violence.

Illogical: If anarchy (meaning without a leader) is essentially chaos (by some modern definitions), then how does chaos come apart and become chaos?

> And the ones who survive that will be the ones who
> band together into units for mutual defense—Hello!
> States!

Illogical once again. If what you propose above were true, then before there were 'states,' there would be whole families in union—an act itself which ensures the destruction of individual liberty.

> Individuals are wonderful. I love them. But in a
> fight between one smart man filled with character
> and ten morons, my money is on the morons.

Illogical again. Smart money should be on the smart man, as morons lack the ability to cogitate at length. Of course, men of great mental ability often use those abilities in a perverted way.

[--snip--]
> But. . . . What might this Moron-ocracy look like? Hmm.

It occurs to me, that you already have your mind made up.
If that is so, then why continue the discussion—unless of course, there still a question in your mind regarding your contentions?

As I've stated before, and as you've often pointed out, no matter what existence we live, there will always be those who will attack others. And, as has been stated innumerable times—in the TLE itself, government under fools with power acting in the stead of the electorate, is way more dangerous than any small group of ruffians having no constituted authority at all to operate in even a quasi-legal instance.

Government has the ability to both silence and disarm the entire populace.
What group of ruffians could accomplish that?

> For Earth Itself and Cranky Anarchists standing on it,
> the herd must be controlled or it'll go over the cliff
> and take everything and everyone else with them.
>
> I can't get behind that point of view.

So, your particular final solution is . . . ?

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Another Reply from E.J. Totty

Jay, & Ken,

My remarks interposed below.
Do note: In the in interests of brevity, only the most salient parts of Jay's remarks will be saved.

> At 3:37 AM -0700 9/5/06, Jay P. Hailey wrote:
>> Your latest in the TLE
>> I would argue your point only on the following:
>
> Hey Mister Totty
>
> I read your feed back, thank you very much.

Ditto!

[..snip..]
> My orignal reply was restatement of the Incrementalist
> versus. . . oh, er (Revolutionist?) Debate, and I was
> coming down as an Incrementalist.

I would remark only that incrementalism—with the idea of achieving liberty, is not unlike a snail placed upon a Teflon incline: You think you're going forward, but you're getting nowhere—fast.
And in today's world, that incline is getting steeper.

> The answer is to get rid of Statism—at all period.

I could not agree more.

> I get that. I am not sure I *agree* with it. I frankly,
> am not convinced that Humans could live in a non-state
> society or culture without making up a state for themselves.

Well, let's look at that.
No matter how much government existed for the European Pioneers—and the Indians as well, the only time they were subject to any man-made law, was when they were in the sphere of influence where that law existed—and was enforceable. Otherwise? Otherwise, they existed among themselves quite amicably, save for those instances where thieves and murderers existed.

> In any case—this is a very serious philosophical divide.

Only because not a lot of people—I perceive, are willing to think outside the box they have been forced into. But, I have discovered that many people—once experiencing the freedom that exists outside that box, find the experience exhilarating and are reluctant to chain themselves back into the confining existence of the box.
It is by gradual degree that people acclimate to their new found freedom, and become less and less inclined towards any major kind of external instituted control, i.e., constituted government.
In fact, most of those who do come to accept that freedom, become resentful at any exercise of political authority.

> The question is—are you willing to tolerate someone who
> doesn't agree with you?

Why shouldn't I? People disagree with me daily. But, so what?
The only time anyone causes a problem where a disagreement is concerned, is when they perceive of a real threat to themselves—unless they have a statist bent . . .

> What if I come out and say "Anarchy won't work. Humans
> aren't built that way. But I like Liberty and I want to
> increase it."

Just because you say a mode of living won't work, it does not follow that you are correct.
And, no, humans aren't built that way.
Humans, I would seek to remind you, are creatures of habit. And habits are fixed ways of doing something—not unlike a EPROM-based computer subroutine.
Ergo it follows that habits can be changed, and new ways learned—especially if there is some tangible benefit to be had, which outweighs retaining the habitual ways.
Need I remind you that people change their minds all the time?
Change is not only possible, but is indeed inevitable.

> Despite the fact that this could be considered a self
> contradictory statement from the Hard Core anarchist
> POV—can you live with some one who really feels that
> way?

Why wouldn't I? As long as they're not jeopardizing my life, liberty, or property . . .

> Is it possible? Is it desirable—to disagree with someone
> who espouses this idea without telling me "You're not
> Libertarian enough!"?

I don't know about the accusation, as it's really not a valid one.
Being anything might be by matter of degree, and then again not.
The argument lends itself to set theory.

In the binary (digital) world, you are—or you aren't.
Ergo, if a person espouses the entire thought set of Libertarianism, then they would be a logical '1', whereas if they did not, then they would be a logical '0.'
Now, that binary 0 might find itself in a set of other qualifications which define it as something else yet again, but that wouldn't be Libertarian.

Logically then, the criteria for being a thing would hinge upon all aspects being equal to a logical '1'—or a logical '0' if the definition hinges on 'what you are not.'

So, by strict logical definition, you either are, or you are not; there is no gray area in which one may equivocate.
It is this area of equivocation that L.N. Smith might refer to as the Nerf zone, a place where there are those who refer to themselves as Libertarians, but find the entire thought set of Libertarianism to be uncomfortable in some way, and attempt to hijack the identity to make if fit their particular ideology—whatever that might be, instead of the truth.

One might categorize the entire range of human political thought and ideology by way of a hexadecimal number.
For example, 000000 would equal Libertarian, whereas FFFFFF would equal tyranny, with every other polity being described by the range of intervening numbers.
By way of explanation, a '0' indicates how much control you would care to exert over another person—in whatever way, or zero control. Conversely, an 'F' indicates maximum control.
For an explanation of Hexadecimal numbers, see this: http://www.the-eggman.com/seminars/about_hex.html
Otherwise 0 = 0, whereas F = 15.

> Might I be a larval Anarchists?

I can't reply to that, as I have insufficient data.

> About the Tent comment—Once upon a time I left a
> supposedly Libertarian E-mail list after that sort
> of semantic nit picking. We have plenty of ideas to
> bat across the floor without playing that sort of
> game.
> IMHO.

I'm wanting to comment that merely because a group of people congregate to discuss their particular positions—regarding their own polites, it does not follow that just because they find themselves thinking along the same lines, that they are what they want everyone else to identify them as.
So, just because you might 'bat ideas across the floor,' all that really means is that your are exchanging your particular points of view. To use your artifice of the 'tent,' merely walking inside that doesn't qualify anyone as being what the tent implies.
It's sort of like walking into someone's house and remarking, "Gee, I like your furniture, but really, you ought get rid of that settee!"
It then goes to hell from there.

A group of socialists/communists (they are one and the same) bent upon taking-over a political party, might well define themselves as whatever that party calls itself. And that is the point here, that I want to make: Redefining what's already been clearly defined.
If you really don't like something, you are under no obligation to accept it.
You might pick/choose what you like and discard the rest.

In the instance above, regarding those congregating, it would be quite one thing if those participating merely stated up-front, that they are (define yourself here), and desire to know more about what the discussion entails—Libertarianism.

BUT—and a BIG one that is, it's when those who aren't what they say they are, pretend to be Libertarian, and then propose to make changes to the idea, in the attempt to corrupt the whole of the idea by way of gradualism (think: Fabian Socialists), that matters go down hill.

And further, it's those chameleons/doppelgängers who rile, chide and condemn the center/purists for not accepting small changes to the definition of Libertarianism, and then equivocate at great length as to what they're really up to: Redefinition.

Now, I realize that you have your ideas about where we should be—politically speaking, but where I differed from your point of view was in the matter of a written constitution: We had a thing, but the buggers who dickered acceded to the buggers who bickered, and what we ended up with is fiat liberty controlled—by the herd.

I also realize that you desire to get from where we are now to someplace less onerous, again—politically speaking.
I'll remind you of the snail on the Teflon incline.
And as that old saying goes, when you go to the bargaining table with what you already own—and bargain on it, you'll end up with less.

[--snip--]
> Can we discuss where our two philosophies diverge and see
> if there can be a meeting of the minds?

Well, you should know—by now, where I stand.
However, to add a point, I dislike how some people would describe Libertarians as somehow being anarchists. As has been pointed out previously, in the TLE, anarchy means: Without a leader. That definition does not include any aspect regarding how one behaves towards the rights of all others.

> Because to me, frankly you sound like a Fundie Anarchist—
> someone for whom there is no half way and no shades of gray.
> Anarchist or Statist, pick one and then be it.

I do not believe in mixing a fine wine with any amount of sewage.

> I am not going to slide into either of those two boxes.
> They do not fit me well.

I would hope not!

> And here we are again in one of the inevetible arguments
> one see when one shouts "Individualists Unite!":-):-):-)

Well, if one must shout a thing, then one must of necessity be familiar with the correct definition of the thing, lest one be misleading.

> Thank you for your e-mail, Sir.

And you are most welcome.

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Another Reply from Jay P. Hailey

E.J. Totty wrote:
> That's illogical—especially in light of what we
> know about people in general. Trust is earned, not
> published.

Illogical—if you go out and drive on the roads—you're essentially trusting everyone who shares the road with you to react in certain predictavble ways.

When you turn on the lights in your house—you're trusting that the Engineers and maintenance folks at the power plants have done their jobs properly

When you go the market and buy food—you're trusting that the farmer is present with a fairly predictable set of behaviors he's not going to charge you for posioned food and then walk away laughing about what a "Sucker" you are.

By his being there with food to sell, you're both partaking in his trust in the people who built the infrastructure which allowed him to grow, harvest and transport the food to where he could sell it to you.

It's true that at each step the people who perform a social function—as an example, Jay's road Construction contactors—we promise to build you a fine, durable and well engineered road, easy to use and maintain for whatever commercial purposes you have in mind. Okay so a farmer's Coop hires me to build "Fame to Market Road"—each person acts for what he percieves as his own self interest. The question is—are people largely smart enough to see that their self interest lies in behvaing properly?

Suppose I take their deposit, sneer "Suckers" and walk away.

Sure if it's an isolated incident, they'll be pursuing me with private security, theft recover and arbitration companies.

But it if happens too many times—they'll run out of money and the Farm to Market road will never be built.

And you won't see any food in the market

Our society is based on million, perhaps billions of one-on-one interactions between people, and social organization which emerges from the bottom up.

But all of this is predicated on our desires to be treated fairly and to make an advantageous deal.

In the short run it's easier to steal, but every child has to learn that stealing brings negative consequences in the longer term, from social pressure (Shame) Repatrations and possibly through Self Image and conscience

BUT—if too many people take the easy way out, and lie, cheat or steal—this network, this emergent system will break down.

It hasn't yet—Government is a thin overlay on all this stuff

By definition—if human beings weren't trustworthy. . . . Then civilization as we know it would NOT be here.

Your assertion that you don't trust human beings is bellied. You drove to the market bought food—returned to a home that had not been vandalized or robbed (and this was unlikely enough to make it good risk to leave your home and go to the store) You cooked and ate your food probably using electricity or natural gas, then you turned on some lights, and your computer (both the products of complicated infrastructure) and typed me that message

And it would be safe to bet that you didn't get shot at or assaulted (except as the government does so almost continuously) or robbed on your way to and from the store.

You placed child-like utter trust in the society you are a part of of, which is composed of lots of individual human beings. Almost none of them felt it was in their interest to rob you, assault you or shoot at you. (again, except the government)

So your trust was well placed. It worked like a charm. You live in a house or apartment which is relatively warm, safe and stocked with food, water and electrity.

By definition humanity is trustworthy—if People weren't largely trustworthy I assure you We would not be having this conversation—for I would not exist.

Jay P. Hailey
jayphailey@yahoo.com


To Which E.J. Totty Replied

Jay, & Ken,

My remarks interposed below:

At 9:21 PM -0700 9/5/06, Jay P. Hailey wrote:

I remarked:

> That's illogical—especially in light of what
> we know about people in general. Trust is earned, not
> published.

Jay replied:

> Illogical—if you go out and drive on the
> roads—yu're essentially trusting everyone
> who shares the road with you to react in certain
> predictavble ways.

No, logical.
You seem to have forgotten the edict of the living: Trust no one.
If I were to proceed from your premise, then I might toss caution to the wind, and not pay attention to either the road or other drivers.
In fact, I wouldn't even carry a knife or firearm. Why would I? I would trust everyone, right?

[--snip--]
Jay continues:
> It's true that at each step the people who
> perform a social function—as an example,
> Jay's road Construction contactors—we
> promise to build you a fine, durable and well
> engineered road, easy to use and maintain for
> whatever commercial purposes you have in mind.

Well, actually you've omitted that whole BIG part about a contract for services . . .
A contract is an 'obligation' to perform.
Buying groceries or other products implies no such thing.

Jay remarks:
> Suppose I take their deposit, sneer "Suckers"
> and walk away.

Ahem, well, there are contracts, and then there are 'contracts.'

Jay continues:
> Sure if it's an isolated incident, they'll be
> pursuing me with private security, theft recover
> and arbitration companies.
> But it if happens too many times—they'll
> run out of money and the Farm to Market road
> will never be built.
> And you won't see any food in the market

I beg to differ—on several levels.
You might get away with something like that once, but I don't think so. I say that simply for the fact that most contracts that I'm aware of, state the fact of an escrow to be released upon satisfactory completion of work.

But, even then, farmers have brought good to market along the most arduous routes imaginable in times of old, and actually did so even up until the late 1950's right here in the good 'ole USofA. So, your argument is rather invalid on just that set of facts alone.

Jay continues:
> In the short run it's easier to steal, but
> every child has to learn that stealing brings
> negative consequences in the longer term, from
> social pressure (Shame) Repatrations and possibly
> through Self Image and conscience

Oh, I see. So we really do NOT need government after all.
But that's what I've been saying all along. . .

Jay continues:
> BUT—if too many people take the easy way
> out, and lie, cheat or steal—this network,
> this emergent system will break down.
> It hasn't yet—Government is a thin overlay
> on all this stuff

You've completely left out that part of the government acting as a thug, stealing large amounts of personal wealth to accomplish what the ordinary citizen could well accomplish by himself.

Jay continues:
> By definition—if human beings weren't
> trustworthy. . .&ngsp;. Then
> civilization as we know it would NOT be here.

But wait: If—as you say, that humans are so trustworthy, then why the need for government?
You contradict yourself—numerous times.

Jay continues:
> You placed child-like utter trust in the
> society you are a part of of, which is
> composed of lots of individual human beings.

I sincerely believe that you have me confused with someone else. Yourself perhaps?

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


Jay P. Hailey Replied

> You seem to have forgotten the edict of the living:
> Trust no one.

"A witty saying proves nothing."—Voltaire

I don't know the source of that "edict" but I don't think it's true.

Reminds me of a Woody Allen book I read once—talked about a Gangster so paranoid he never let anyone in the entire city of New york get behind him. He would walk down the street constantly pirouetting and spinning around.

Everyone has to sleep some time. Forgive my presumption but it would seem you have gotten away with being unconscious and unarmed several thousand times.

How do you do it without strusting someone? Or generally trusting the universe not to screw you when you have back turned on it?

Jay P. Hailey
jayphailey@yahoo.com


And E.J. Totty Replied

Jay, & Ken,

I said:
> You seem to have forgotten the edict of the living:
> Trust no one.

You replied:

> "A witty saying proves nothing."—Voltaire
>
> I don't know the source of that "edict" but I don't
> think it's true.

Well, allow me yet another witticism:
He who trusts very few, knows the value of friendship;
He who trusts everyone, knows not friends, but acquaintances only.
Acquaintances are akin to veneer; friendship is as the whole of the wood.

You continued:

> Everyone has to sleep some time. Forgive my presumption but it would seem therhave gotten away with being unconscious and unarmed several thousand times.

You must be very fond of your presumptions.

And finally:

> How do you do it without strusting someone? Or generally trusting the universe not to screw you when you have back turned on it?

Well, golly gee. It's like this: Just do it. Perhaps you've led a sheltered life?
And, the universe has been proven to be more violent a place than was generally heretofore thought. In fact, just 'living' is a dangerous thing. I am not so vein or inclined to believe that the inanimate matter which comprises its greater part has entertained any thought about me whatsoever.

Our lives are inconsequential when the larger aspects of that universe are considered. Therefore, it behoves any thinking person to pause and reflect upon that, for surely the ever smaller aspects are a reflection of the larger, and every bit as dangerous.

E.J. Totty
ejt@seanet.com


More arguments for Open Borders—this time (unbeknownst to him) from the pen of Hans-Hermann Hoppe!

In conjunction with the views I expressed in previous articles, supporting the libertarian Non Aggression Principle and Open Borders, I was recently reading "Secession, the State, and the Immigration Problem" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe wherein he attempts to justify a rejection of the libertarian view of freedom of travel and open borders.

In an otherwise excellent article, there is a fatal flaw in his logic, just before he presents his conclusion that "the moral status of public property as expropriated private property" is "sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal". The emphasized portions of Hoppe's presentation are mine.

"Public property is the result of state-government confiscations—of legislative expropriations and/or taxation—of originally privately owned property. While the state does not recognize anyone as its private owner, all of government controlled public property has in fact been brought about by the tax-paying members of the domestic public. Austrians, Swiss, and Italians, in accordance with the amount of taxes paid by each citizen, have funded the Austrian, Swiss, and Italian public property. Hence, they must be considered its legitimate owners. Foreigners have not been subject to domestic taxation and expropriation; hence, they cannot be assumed to have any rights regarding Austrian, Swiss or Italian public property."

"The recognition of the moral status of public property as expropriated private property is not only sufficient grounds for rejecting the open border proposal. It is equally important for combatting the present semi-open "affirmative action" immigration policies of the Western welfare states."

If I am a legitimate owner of the public property in the U.S., then I have a say in how it is used and I want unrestricted access! I cannot trade with people who are excluded from reaching my property, especially "foreigners". As a legitimate owner of the "public property", and of private property within the territory commonly known as the United States, I issue a standing, open invitation to any and all individuals in the world to use the "public" property of which I am a legitimate owner! Furthermore, I know of other legitimate owners of this public property in the U.S. who hold the same view.

Mr Hoppe's argument is sufficient grounds for ENFORCING open borders!

Dennis Wilson
Dennis.Lee.Wilson@Cox.Net
Signatory: Covenant of Unanimous Consent


Dear Lady Liberty,

Re.: your Freedom a la Carte in the last issue.

I consider that what you seek cannot be attained, by either brute force, or assent, as in either case only a subclass of citizen will agree with what you seek—in the whole of the matter.

Liberty cannot be mandated—which is what the originators of the USC hoped to do: If a class of people are disposed to being enslaved, you can't order them to be free. Well, maybe you might try, but don't count on any measure of success! Classic case: The United States of America.

Liberty cannot be outlawed either, as has been done in the past, because it has arisen with spontaneity in even the most downtrodden of lands. 'No man-made law . . . '
Statistically speaking, it's not much more than a blip on the landscape of human history, and there's a reason for that: Human shortsightedness. The few achieve what the rest wish for, but the rest exert no effort in that direction, hoping instead to have that passed to them on a silver platter, replete with every garnishment fit for royalty.

Simply stated: I have no faith in my fellow man to do not much more than to acquiesce—without ordeal, to the demands made upon him by whatever government, for fear of losing his daily possessions, which he holds more dear than his own life.

Ask yourself this one question: What modern man—or woman, would give up everything s/he holds dear, in the quest to be free from whatever form of government? If everything you owned was forfeit, and your loved ones estranged by your quest to be free, would you still pursue that goal?
Only the patriots of old may answer that question—along with those involved in that War of Northern Aggression, as all the rest may only read of it.

The very largest majority of humanity deserve their condition of servitude, if only that they do not a thing to free themselves: They wait for the rest of us to die for them, and then suck-up the gravy they have no valid claim to, falling thence into yet another pit of self-inflicted misery—and expecting to be rescued yet again to boot!!

Reveal history to them, and they 'ho-hum,' remarking that your prognostications are without modern basis in fact, and declaring you to be some kind of 'alarmist.'
I am wont to remark that modernity is maternity to the worst form of asininity.

Want proof? Just look around you. How many people in this world are free to make their own decisions regarding their own lives—without some hideous form of government control?
And more importantly? How many are fighting to be free from that control?

There are those few who are fighting . . .

The rest are the cheering crowds at the coliseum, watching the brave slaughtered, and receiving more bread and circuses to keep them placated—until the next emperor arrives on the scene.

What you and I write about is simply a theory: humans desire to be free. I say theory, because it's just that. If it were fact, then we might use that fact to achieve our goal of liberty from whatever form of governmental oppression.
Actually, now that I consider that last statement, the term 'government oppression' is a repetitive remark, as constituted government IS repression—in its every form.

Simply stated: What you seek doesn't exist—regarding the USC.
And, what you have written amply points up to just that.

I perceive that you are attempting to achieve the impossible dream—regarding the USC.

In your greatest effort, you might make a very big splash. But then I'm reminded that a rock tossed into a deep pool of water is soon enveloped by the ensuing return wave.

The sooner you come to the realization that the US Government will not honor any aspect of the USC you'd like them to, the sooner you'll come to know that the words scribbled upon that parchment in D.C., are not worth your time, effort, or acumen to make things right—regarding it.

Ultimately, the very best we can do is to keep talking. We won't achieve much in the way of actually becoming free, because that just won't be allowed. But, the longer an idea hangs around, the greater its ability to have affect.
The USC is dead. Let it lie undisturbed.

I implore you: Don't waste your time on 'constituted government.' Speak instead, of 'self-government.'

Boy! If Jefferson—and the rest of that gang, could see things now. . .

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 384, September 10, 2006

Bill of Rights Press