THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 564, April 4, 2010
"This is the lie of democracies and republics.
Your opinion doesn't matter."
Send Letters to email@example.com
We Did It Again
About three weeks ago L. Neil Smith published an article titled "Archimedes' .45" in TLE. A week later the editor was kind enough to publish my comments on the article that led to "Archimedes' .45". The next week (22-26 March 2010) there were at least two articles regarding open carry and liberal licensing laws in the regular press.
Surprisingly, these articles were neutral and unbiased. They admitted that liberalized carry policies have not contributed to a blood bath. They pointed out that crime has been falling independent of liberalized gun laws for other reasons (end of urban turf wars by gangs selling crack for example.). They admit that there is no objective evidence supporting "gun control" rather than a distaste for seeing people carrying guns by some liberals. They could have been written by liberals trying to come out just short of admitting that gun control is wrong, or progun people trying to give the other side a fair hearing.
All this a week after contributors to TLE were dealing with this. They were commenting that Obama would be a case of "say hello to the new boss same as the old boss," long before anyone else, especially his supporters, twigged. The fact is Obamacare is the only thing he's done different than McCain would have, and his cabinet has so far been an ineffectual joke to boot (when is anyone going to come out and state that Clinton essentially sucks as Secretary of State?). Do not be surprised that the only thing saving us from truly horrid restrictions of free speech and press, freedom of religion, gun rights and association, not to mention violation of Fourth Amendment rights is the haplessness of Pelosi and Reed.
And you heard it here first. Wait for the establishment news media to catch up to these insights either to condemn or praise these outcomes long after the people who read and write for TLE have beat these ideas to death.
Re: Sean Gangol's "A New Hope"
Sean writes, "This time the main stream media used images of the nuttiest members of the group, which included the woman who asked Barney Frank why he supports Nazi policies and those clowns that (sic) were walking around with firearms outside the meetings."
It's not entirely clear whether Sean is saying it's mainstream media folks who think of these people as clowns, or whether he himself thinks of them that way. I suspect the latter.
If so, he appears to be of the class of freedom proponents that asks, "Please sir, can I have just a little bit more freedom? If that disturbs you, then never mind." How else to put it when he looks down on people actually exercising the right he claims to support?
Strangely, after the heyday media had with guns outside meetings, the drive for more freedom among us simple hoi polloi was not derailed anyway. If anything, the reverse. Perhaps our view of liberty is a bit more robust than Sean's appears to be.
I pulled those quotes from the site
listed here, and confirmed them 2 other places. I guess there are always disagreements on the veracity of quotes. Sorry if it doesn't meet your standards.
REALLY stupid Congressman
I've seen this video posted elsewhere, but Marko (aka the munchkin wrangler) has the best descriptive language.
If he is the best his district has to offer, what must the voters be like? (Of course, my congresscritter is Elijah Cummings, whose only redeeming trait is his knack for not proposing any new ways to steal from us; he just goes with whatever Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi tell him to vote for.)
Get it Right
Last week Doonesbury ran a series of cartoons criticizing Starbucks for not banning customers from entering heeled. In one of these cartoons he pointed out that the carrying of guns was banned in Dodge.
Let's get it right. First off, the way it was enforced, town residents were not busted for carrying handguns, but were expected to be discreet (carry concealed.). The law was meant to apply to cowboys coming in to town after completing a long drive (more on this later). In other words this law was selectively enforced.
Secondly, let us revisit the treatment of the buchailli bo (I use the Gaeilge as a cheap shot at Bill Maher*). Drovers were in Dodge to party and were encouraged to get drunk, skin rattle with prostitutes, and gamble. In short they were brought to a near riot, encouraged to behave in a disorderly manner, sold rotgut, encouraged to risk being cheated and to risk being rolled.
One wonders why the city fathers wanted them disarmed.
* Back when Bill Maher made a comment to Sean Cassidy not to have cowboys in his TV series Roar. Most collections of Irish tales refer to cattle herders, a major activity in early Ireland as cowboys. The singer of "Buacchail on Eirne" proclaims his intention never to be a cowboy as he would rather spend his time drinking and playing with the young girls in the mountains.
Irish have always been cowboys. Maher you twit.
To which L. Neil Smith replied:
Extremely interesting, A.
Understand, too, that the Dodge City gun ban was largely a Republican effort to disarm Democrats (and presumed former Confederates). That' the primary reason for the dispute between the Earps and the Clantons. The way I read it, the Clantons were mostly in the right, and the Earps were simply thugs and bullies.
L. Neil Smith
Pedal Migration, the new immigration system
I'm tired of the term "Illegal Immigration". It sucks for so many reasons, I don't even know where to start. First off, I totally oppose the current system. This is the "Land of the Free, The Home of the Brave". NOT the land of those who got here first, now stay away from my yard!" But it is also NOT the land of the free lunch and tons of entitlements. There HAS to be a way to straighten it out. Here's MY take on the solution.
First, Some of my friends will disagree with this, but send the "Illegal Immigrants" home, not because I don't want them, but because, like it or not, they broke CURRENT laws to be here. Later, I'll cover how they can return. The main reason to send them back is not, however, to punish them for the "crime" of coming here, but to TOTALLY eliminate the "We cannot have an amnesty program" argument.
Second, we need to TOTALLY ignore other country's laws about how their citizens leave that country. No asking their country for permission to leave can be made a requirement of entry to this country. If they get here, they stay here. (Assuming they follow the few rules I will get to soon!) No matter what the country of origin's rules, we take the person.
Third, we open the borders, with a few simple requirements. Register your presence at the local courthouse. This let's you get whatever paperwork you might need to operate a motor vehicle, pay your taxes, and begin your life as a resident alien. For the next five years, pay your taxes, and live your life. The only real, unbreakable rule? You are eligible for absolutely NO public assistance! Welfare? NO! Free Medical Care? NO! Housing assistance? NO! You pay whatever taxes every other citizen pays, but you can get NO taxpayer monies back for 5 years. Please do not consider this as approval for ANY public assistance, because I don't. But if any is available, the new immigrants are not eligible for it. Of course, privately funded charities can give what they want.
In five years, they are citizens. Plain and simple. "What about the returned illegals?" you ask? Follow these simple rules, and you're in. Now, you aren't illegal! Welcome to the United States Of America!! the problems I foresee are mainly from liberals and conservatives. Liberals will want to hand out freebies to every Juan, Francois, and Harry who asks. Conservatives will scream about how "They'll all vote Democrat!". Well, actually, they'll vote however they want, but I think they'll vote for the party that approves my reform bill. What do you think?
Again we are ahead of the curve
In and the 30th of March 2010 Huffington Post there is an article discussing the abiotic origins of petroleum and natural gas. I want to point out that our esteemed publisher and others have written articles on this phenomenon and its economic and political consequences. The possibility that big oil has promoted the dwindling natural resource scenario for their profit and the disregarding of growing evidence of the abiotic origin of fossil fuels was also discussed.
It's nice to see the other side begin to wise up.
I have two problems with your argument about "What his attitudetoward your ownership and use of weaponsconveys is his real attitude about you." First I am a full fledged Libertarian that believes the job of the government is to stand up for those who can not stand for themselves. I, of course fully believe in the non-avocation of force. This is where guns come in and where I disagree with most of the Libertarians out there. Your right to own a gun and bring it out in public ends when my freedom of fear begins. The Bill of Rights stipulated a reason for the right to bear arms. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is NOT a complete sentence.
We no longer need a well regulated militia since the national guards have been, well, nationalized. The framers of the Constitution did NOT want a standing army. We now have that ergo the first part of the second amendment has been annulled so to has the second part. You will of course say thats what the comma is aboutwith or without one or both commas it is NOT a complete sentence. You will also say that is has not been brought to the states for ratification to annul. I agree, but we have done worse things.
You will say you need a gun to defend yourselfI will tell you we have THE HIGHEST death rate per capita by guns of any nation in the world. Are we that much more violent? No, we just have liberalnot libertariangun laws. You will of course show me statistics that show we do not have the highest death rate per capita by guns of any nation in the world. I will stand by the fact that those statistics are WRONG.
You state that you hold most dear in your heart "Zero Aggression Principle" well the bottom line is guns are a symbol of aggression and force. Sure people hunt with itI would venture to say they don't use a machine gun. What happens when those people turn their guns on others or even themselves. It is NOT a right in my book to carry a gun. It is a right of all individuals to feel safe and I do not feel safe around guns.
Going back to your statement about a politicians attitude "...toward your ownership and use of weaponsconveys is his real attitude towards you." I am with that politician. I do not trust my fellow man with a gun. Period! (Ironic I should use an exclamation point.) personally I would like to see the army abolished as well as the militia and the 'right' to bear arms. Otherwise more power to the Bill of Rights.
I guess I am not your typical Libertarian because I am also pro capital punishment and against abortion, except in certain circumstances where the health of the mother is a concern, and even then I believe in the right of the baby to grow. In my mind being pro capital punishment is still consistent with the Zero Aggression Principle in that I think it should be used sparingly and under very limited circumstances. My anti abortion stance also follows this principle as I believe in zero aggression especially against those who can not stand for themselves. Maybe its a personal thing as my son has Down Syndrome and many people would be okay with having aborted him. My reply to such people including Sci Fi authors who advocate genetic manipulation, is you would have deprived the world of my son who brings joynot just happinessto 99% of those he meets.
Anyway, that is all I wanted to say.
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!