THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 457, February 24, 2008
"Media so putrescently corrupt they
glowed in the dark like rotten fish"
Send Letters to email@example.com
Ron Paul Loses, well duh!
There seems to be much consternation over Ron Paul failing to win over the mainstream of the Republican Party. The answer is really quite simple, the majority of Republicans are within a few years of getting Social Security. A fiscally sound and Constitutionally honest government would have to tell those Boomers and their still living parents "Terribly sorry but you don't have a contract saying the next generations owe you a damn thing" and they bloody well know it. They may talk a good game about balanced budgets but when push comes to shove they will enslave their kids to provide for their old age.
I just wonder how long it will take for Gen X to start smothering their greedy selfish parents with pillows while they sleep. Especially when "saving" Social Security will mean our contribution will be 25% or more of our paychecks. Until the Boomers start kicking the bucket we wont get that "gimme gimme gimme" monkey off our backs.
One of the complaints you hear most often about English is that its grammar and spelling rules have too many exceptions. Considering that English is essentially a pidgin created by combining Norman French and Anglo-Saxon, then throwing in loan words from Norse, Welsh, Latin, Greek, Gaelic (Both Irish and Scots), Parisian French, Arabic, and after that I lose track, this should surprise no one.
Surprise, If you learn other languages you find exceptions to their rules of spelling and grammar. The thing is there is a rule. After the rule is accepted and agreed on you start to make exceptions (for example, this sentence is grammatical, but it isn't standard). First the rule, then the exceptions.
You have a right to freedom of speech and press. This is an absolute right. This does not mean you cannot be sued for knowingly and deliberately uttering or publishing lies, or that if you deliberately utter fighting words you cannot be criminally charged for provoking a fight. Some people (Californians mostly) would argue that this is a restriction of their right to freedom of speech, an "exception to the rule." To avoid argument I will concede the point.
You have the right to keep and bear arms. There may be individuals who are so mentally impaired or so inclined to violate the rights of others that they may properly have their right to keep and bear arms restricted. The most clear case example I can think of would be a person with bipolar disorder hallucinating while delirious from fever and being improperly medicated in the extreme of one of his mood swings, and then only until he is properly medicated and the fever is over. I'm sure government lawyers can think of other exceptions.
But first let's agree on the rule.
People can use their freedom of speech to disprove lies, and their right to bear arms to resist those who abuse this right. The People may find it necessary to put restraints on these rights in extreme cases. But first we have to make it clear that these rights without restriction are the rule and that restrictions of them are the exceptions.
Or else we don't have rights, just the privileges extended by the Res Nostra this week.
It's articles like this that make me realize the just how badly "real" history has come down to us:
"Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty"
Might El Neil have read this one before writing The Probability Broach?
Definitely something readers of The Libertarian Enterprise would enjoy.
L. Neil Smith replies:
I learned some harsh truths about George Washington, the expense-account general, from Robert LeFevre. Among other things, George wasn't really very bright.
Seems to run in the Georges, somehow.
L. Neil Smith
P.S. Apologies to George H. Smith and George O. Smith, not to mention my friend Jorge Aunon.