THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 416, May 6, 2007
"But why assume that. . .?"
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Responding to L. Neil Smith, Michael McNeil wrote:
"I agree with you completely on a libertarian, ideological level. But we need to get candidates elected. I hope we agree on this point, if nothing else. "
McNeil is assuming that A is required to get B, then focusing on A so tightly that he loses sight of B. But why assume that "we need to get candidates elected" in order to win our freedom? Let's consider a few points.
1. The federal, state, and local governments are criminal organizations by any impartial measure of what "criminal" means, and certainly by the standards of the non-aggression principle. They are, in fact, responsible for the vast majority of property crime and kidnappings that occur in this country.
You don't deal with a criminal organization by joining it. You either seek to strengthen your own defenses against it, to weaken its ability to harm you, or to unravel the organization altogether.
2. No people in known human history have ever voted themselves free. Never.
Freedom is won by taking it, not by meekly asking for it. The unauthorized aliens who come into this country without first obtaining the permission of any government know what I mean. They have more of the spirit of freedom in them than do most native-born Americans.
3. If you win elections by watering down your message, you haven't won anything.
McNeil writes that "The only way that the LP will ever be able to win elections is by either appealing to the general populace through more moderate positions..." By way of analogy, McNeil would have us deal with the criminal problem posed by the Mafia by trying to take over its leadership. And because a message of "don't rob and kill" won't go over well with that crowd, we'll just have to settle for breaking 5% fewer kneecaps per year (this reduction to be phased in over a 10-year period) and allowing those who defy the Organization the option of being maimed instead of executed (on the first offense, that is.)
4. To win elections you have to change attitudes. And having done that, we won't need to win elections.
If even a significant minority of Americans accepted basic libertarian ideas (isonomy and the non-aggression principle)if they understood at a gut level that whatever is a crime for you or me to do is also a crime for the government to doif they accepted as self-evident that governments should not be accorded any special legal status but should be judged by exactly the same same standards as any other group of peoplethen the government's diktats would become unenforceable. The pervasive and unthinking support and cooperation on which the government relies would fray and begin to unravel.
It's not elections we need to winwe need to win minds.
Kevin Van Horn
BELLEVUE, Wash., April 30 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/The Second Amendment Foundation today sent a letter to ABC News President David Westin, asking that reporter Sam Donaldson be barred from ever again reporting on gun rights issues, because he is serving as master of ceremonies at a fund-raiser for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Donaldson is hosting the event May 15 in Washington, D.C. His appearance, said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb, reinforces the opinion of this nation's gun owners that ABC and its reporters for the most part share an anti-gun philosophy.
"We believe that the appearance of such a high-profile ABC reporter and commentator as the host of an event that raises money for one of the nation's most hysteria-driven gun control organizations is a terrible breach of propriety," Gottlieb said.
"Donaldson is actually out there in the spotlight," he continued, "helping this anti-gun organization raise hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be used to trample our Second Amendment rights. It's as bad as Dan Rather being the keynoter at a Democrat Party event in Texas a few years ago.
"Any appearance of fairness that Donaldson may have had on the gun rights issue just went out the window," Gottlieb observed. "As of now, Mr. Donaldson has zero credibility on any level that deals with firearms, and the same pretty much goes with ABC News as a news agency.
"Donaldson has no business hosting a fund raising event for a gun control organization, and ABC News has no business allowing it," Gottlieb stated.
"By participating in this event, Sam Donaldson and ABC News just spit in the faces of 80 million law-abiding gun owners," Gottlieb concluded, "and I guarantee sponsors of ABC News are going to hear from all of us."
Second Amendment Foundation
So Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion? I don't think sonot after reading the article at WorldNetDaily.com at
, I don't!
So Islam is peaceful? Then why have these 'peaceful, tolerant' Islamics been burning, beheading, and mutilating Christians?
Why does Sharia 'law' demand such?
These are questions we need to start asking ourselves and each otherand especially our political leadersNOW!
Marc V. Ridenour
The Fighting 14th
So Ms. Wilson is appealing her conviction for violating Texas laws against lesbian polygamy. Her attorneys, the firm of Charles "Curly" Dewey and Associates, brilliantly argue that the laws in question violate her right to privacy under the 9th Amendment ("Just because we forgot to mention it doesn't mean you ain't got that right."Your Friendly Neighborhood Founding Fathers). Jubge Deguellista says he agrees then points out that the Ninth doesn't apply because Ms. Wilson is being tried under Texas law, not Federal. Mr. Larry Cheatham jumps up and says, "Yes, but the 14th Amendment requires that the states are bound to respect rights guaranteed under the Federal Bill of Rights." His Honor gives in and releases Ms. Wilson. Moish Howe, the third associate, proclaims it's great not to be working with a bunch of stooges.
The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in the years after the War of Yankee Conquest. Regardless of what either side says, the point of the War was whether the United States would be ruled and North America be dominated by the Southern Planter class or the Northern factory owners. After they lost part of Southern refusal to accept defeat was the denial of full Civil Rights to Blavk Americans in the South. As a result Congress passed the 14th Amendment guaranteeing everyone born or naturalized into the United States full citizenship and all persons in the US equal protection under the law, They also required ratification of this amendment as a condition of readmission into the Union and the end of military occupation.
Currently that means any right given you under Federal law is also a right under state law, but that states can extend their citizens rights other states don't. For example if Parker v. rhe District of Columbia is decided so that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms the 14th Amendment requires that the States as well as the Federales respect this right. However Texas Homestead Rights guaranteeing that your creditors must let you keep one handgun and one long gun (Unless they are specifically pledged) do not protect California residents.
We need to get in the habit of invoking the 14th Amendment more often. If the Reconstruction Era Republicans were foolish enough (from the tyrants' point of view) to close this Federal Guaranteed Rights/ States Guaranteed Rights loophole we must be careful to make sure it stays closed. Writing and talking about this is tour right under the 1st and 14th Amendment.
Dear Editor: You wrote in your comment to my letter of last issue:
[I was paraphrashing the comments made by the shooter. He did shoot some people you know. Yes, I am hostile towards people who kill innocents. All of my comments were directed at That Stupid Git hisownself. Why do you assume the comments were directed at you? Indeed, how could you possibly assume the comments were directed at you?Editor]
I did not assume that your comments were directed at me. I am well aware that they were directed at the Virginia Tech shooter. However, the topic of my letter was about the facts that your comments were directed at an innappropriate and irrelevent aspect of the shooter's behavior, namely his 'whining' over not having any friends.
Not only is his whining, or other personal annoying habits none of your business, but it is not the issue that SHOULD be discussed. What SHOULD be discussed is the fact that he shot 32 other people. His state of mind before or during the event, or his social skills or lack thereof are irrelevent, since for among other reasons it can't possibly make any difference to the victims of a crime what the mental state or personal habits of the criminal are. Some murderers have no friends. Some murderers have many friends. Some murderers complain a lot. Some murderers don't complain at all. So discussing or insulting one state or the other does little good at all.
It is also very easy, when you engage in such arguments, to reach the conclusion that the real thing you object to is 'whining' not homicide. Consider, for instance, the case of a man who says that he objects to "murder, rape, and his mother-in-law". Since, if he was engaged in an actual serious discussion of violent crime, he would not have mentioned his mother in law, the conclusion to be reached is that his real goal is to complain about his mother-in-law, not violent crime.
Save the 'whining about the whining' for liberal news broadcasters. That is, when they aren't 'whining' about the need for new gun regulations because of this incident.
[Well gee-whiz, at least we are agreed that the shooter was a stupid git. Whining is almost an Olympic sport these days, so it's fair game for satire. Or so I assume/assumed. Assumption even has a major Religious Holiday/Holyday assigned to it, August 15. I always celebrate that day by assuming as many things as possible before breakfast. After breakfast I check the premises with my big 5-cell Maglight®. A feller's gotta have hobbies. Seriously.Editor]