THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 482, August 24, 2008
"Resist tyranny, or die."
Send Letters to firstname.lastname@example.org
Jury Rights DaySeptember 5
On September 5 of this year, FIJA activists across the nation will once again celebrate the juror's right to render a verdict based on conscience by handing out literature, writing letters to the editor, appearing on interviews, and speaking to groups. For more information, go to
September 5th marks the 338th anniversary of the trial of William Penna trial that laid the foundation of our First Amendment Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Peaceable Public Assembly. Many Governors have signed Proclamations in recognition of Jury Rights Day.
In 1670, Quaker William Penn of London was arrested and pled guilty of violating England's Conventicle Acts, which forbade the practice of religions other than the Church of England. The Judge instructed the Jurors to find Penn guilty. The Jurors' refusal to enforce a bad law led to the Court jailing and withholding food and water from the Jurors.
On appeal, the right of Jurors to base their verdict on their best judgment and conscience, despite existing law and court instruction, was affirmed, and cemented the seldom-used but important right of "Jury Nullification of Bad Law" in all our legal systems-the ultimate right of the people to control their government.
These underlying common law concepts firmly establish the fact that Jurors cannot be punished for their verdict. As well, jurors are not required to give a reason for the verdict they render. The fundamental right of Jurors to render their verdict based on conscience is basic to the preservation of Justice, and to our Lawful Society.
Receive a free information packet by calling 1-800-TEL-JURY. Visit
Iloilo Marguerite Jones, Executive Director FIJA
RE: "Playing the God Card" by Ann Morgan
"Would you be willing to live in a society where a large group of people could legally have sex on the front lawn of the house that belonged to one of them, in full sight of a school of gradeschool children across the street, playing outside at their 2:00 recess?"
Ah, maybe you'd like to think about this just a little bit more... In such a free society, I'm not sure there would BE a "school of grade school children" anywhere. But, even if it was a private school, I highly doubt many of the parents would welcome your little scene any more than they would want them to watch you going to the toilet.
"If you think something governmental should be done about that, you don't want an entirely free society..."
What they would or could do about it is a good question, and government interference is not the only option by far. And what's this "legally?" That implies some conferred favor or permission by a government. You can't have it both ways.
I can't imagine any sane person wanting to make their most intimate and private emotions and actions a matter of a roadside exhibition, any more than they would any other personal function or private information. You might well be free to indulge in your little outdoor sex fest, but you would also be required to deal with the inevitable consequences.
But you are quite correct when you say that most folks are not ready for true freedom, because that requires a strict combination of personal ownership AND responsibility for the consequences of that ownership.
Susan Callaway, Editor
RE: "Playing the God Card" by Ann Morgan
Regarding temple prostitution as a scam:
Wandering from the title of this response:
Regarding the human penchant for saying that which they dislike is a sin let us consider the wise words of Hillel 'Love God above all thing and your neighbor as yourself is the sum of the law. All else is just commentary.' He then went on to add,'We are here to learn the commentary.' (I understand the context was a question about the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth.)
Obviously most of the efforts to enforce morality on others as the law of the state have nothing to do with this comment. It is the arrogance of the statist that his will is God's will, and the desperation of the immature busybody that leads him to try to get God's authority on his side.
Hopefully a Libertarian society will spare us from these buffoons.
As for my own religious beliefs, feel free to ask in private correspondence or conversation. Suffice it to say I am grateful to Someone for butterflies and rainbows.
Only the Gooberment would have the Brass Cajones to say that an "inspector" who damaged airplanes while "inspecting" them was a "hero" for pointing out how an terrorist (or idiot) could damage planes while inspecting them... AND the TSA is thinking about fining the airline for allowing it to happen... Typical. The TSA is obviously taking cues from the BATFE.
[See Also "Inspector Clousseau, TSA" by Francis A Ney, Jr., this issueEditor]
Re: "What Ever Happened To TV?" by L. Neil Smith
Looking over the L. Neil Smith classic What Ever Happened To TV?, I must agree and disagree, as preferences betwixt individuals never perfectly match up, but wonder if El Neil has any recollection of another very quickly canceled show, Quark?
Sadly, unlike Firefly, Quark had nothing going for it what so ever except that it was funny enough for me to remember 30 years later after having seen it exactly once, and seems like it might have had the same writers as When Things Were Rotten.
Just tripping over stones on a stroll down memory lane,
Get the Facts
The Harrold School District recently made national news. The school only has a hundred ten students. It is thirty minutes from the town's police station. It is alsoo by a major roadway that fugitives might be travelling. Apparently someone got worried their kids might be taken hostage and a policy was passed authorizing teachers to take guns to school.
Specifically the school board created a policy which stated that teachers who already had concealed carry licenses could take additional classes in crisis management and upon passing request permission to "pack Heat" on campus In effect they would be allowed to add armed security guard to their duties.
Both sides of the gun debate have published stories about this in spectacularized language, often without spelling out the special circumstances the people of Harrold were facing when they adopted this policy. The result is that everyone's cage is being rattled and people are reacting without regard for the facts.
The supporters of the right to keep and bear arms are right. Therefor keeping the debate over RKBA rational and focused on facts is to our advantage. Arguably the same demand for reason and facts favors all freedoms. so the question must be asked, whose interests are served when facts and context are disregard?
Bet you don't like the answer anymore than I do.