THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 565, April 11, 2010
"Fifty Ways to Leave Big Brother"
Send Letters to email@example.com
Reply to a BONA FIDE PUSSY
Most specifically that letter issued forth by that PUSSY whom identifies himself as "Ken Stern."
Since 'Kenny boy' doesn't have the GONADS to post his own e-mail address, then I shall forthwith issue my response to his BLOODY DAMNED SOB-SISTER, HANKY-WRINGING COMMUNOFASCISTIC BOOTLICK, SYCOPHANTIC LICKSPITTLE PANTYWAIST, MILQUETOAST, LIMP-WRISTED , EFFEMINATE, FALSETTO-VOICED, LIBERAL GARBAGE DRAG QUEEN post here.
Dearest Kenny boy,
DO TELL: WHERE, in the U.S. ConstitutionArticle, Section, Paragraph/Clauseis the United States provided with the SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED authority to regulate the exercise of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS?
You'll be telling the rest of us ALL ABOUT THAT, won't you? Real soon now?
NEXT, I have some additional questions for YOU.
The Second Article of Amendment reads thusly:
QUESTION (1) : Which of the following is 'regulated?'
 The militia
QUESTION (2): WHOM is spoken of as possessing of a right in the aforementioned amendment?
 The militia
QUESTION (3) WHERE in the 14th Article of Amendment is the United States or any of the states allowed to create a subclass of citizens whom are NOT allowed to exercise ALL of their rights?
THE KILLER QUESTION: When was the U.S. Constitution amended to do away with the state militias, and the Bill of Rights?
Finally, since the Bill of Rights is actually a BILL OF PROHIBITIONS AGAINST government actions regarding ALL of our rights, then you'll please inform the REST OF US how it is that given the U.S. Constitution is NOTHING MORE than a BILL OF LIMITED POWERS, you might declare what you have?
The U.S. Constitution TELLS the United States WHAT it MAY do.
The Bill of Rights TELLS the United States to KEEP YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF!
So then, you'll be getting back on those questions now, won't you?
Real soon now, right?
Or will you ...?
Please give me a break
to: Ken Stern C/O The Libertarian Enterprise
Please don't waste my time claiming that gun control prevents murder with guns. In El Paso, Texas it is possible to buy a gun and spend less time filling out federal paperwork and passing Instacheck than for your credit to clear on said purchase (OK so El Paso is also full of people with empty pockets and lousy credit). We've had one murder/suicide this year. Ciudad Juarez in Mexico across the Rio Grande has had six hundred plus murders this year, most with guns. It is all but totally illegal for civilians to buy guns, and the guns used are full auto AK's and other military/police weapons that have gotten into the wrong hands.
El Paso hasn't had six hundred murders in the last twenty years total.
I'm sorry the idea of honest people (the only ones gun control would disarm) walking around with guns frightens you. However, if you choose to be ruled by your fears that is your business. However, to overuse the word, don't try to rule me with your fears.
What a paltry poor existence it must be to desire freedom from fear above respecting the freedom of others! To paraphrase Franklin you will gain neither freedom from fear or any other freedom that way.
Ken Stern, in his letter of 4/4/2010, states that my right to keep and bear arms ends (my emphasis) where his right to Freedom from Fear (again, my emphasis) begins.
Excuse me? 'Freedom from Fear'? This is not a right. It is not a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence, nor is it a 'right' in any respect. To claim there is a 'right' to freedom from fear is the same as claiming a 'right' to freedom from being offended. Sorry, but as fear is an emotion, and because of that internal and personal to each individual, it cannot be 'protected against'.
I have a fear of standing on the edge of tall buildings. It is deep-seated and strong enough to cause panic attacks. Should I be able to demand that no building, bridge or other structure be built that exceeds two-stories in height on the off chance I might find myself in or on them? As this fear extends to cliffs, may I demand that all mountains be leveled to 'protect' me? Of course not. And that you have some deep-seated fear of weaponsyou must or you'd not be afraid to allow others to carry themis not our problem. It is yours. If you cannot stand the sight of a person carrying a weapon, I suggest, Ken, you remove yourself to some utopian, hoplophobic commune where you can hide from your fear and you will not be able to trample the self-defense rights of others who're less 'debilitated'.
Ken Stern, You said
First off, WHAT is a "non-avocation of force"?? Second, you CANNOT be a Libertarian if you advocate stripping ANYONE"S rights, for any reason.My right to own and carry firearms DOES NOT EVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES end due to your "fear" of guns or your "freedom of fear".
"Pardon me, sir, but I am afraid of the number 13, so leave it out of all math problems from here on. Also, I'm afraid of snakes, so my right to freedom from fear entitles me to demand that you eliminate snakes from this ZOO." Grow up. Freedom from fear doesn't exist until you die. Please show me where in the Constitution there is a "right to freedom of fear". That's right, you can't, because it isn't there.
Next, WHO CARES if the federal gov't has "nationalized" the state militia, it has no bearing upon the true nature of the militia- every armed citizen, who in time of need, brings their personally owned weapons and defends this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. THIS INCLUDES THE GOVERNMENT IF THEY FAIL TO FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION OR HEED THE LAWFUL DEMANDS OF THE CITIZENRY. This absolutely negates allowing the feds OR the states the power to regulate, control, license, or even KNOW what any citizen owns, carries, or shoots.
So, since ALL your arguments are spurious, I choose to ignore your baseless fears and assert my rights in any way I feel necessary, and I will fight anyone who tries to infringe said rights.
Mr. Stern claims "Your right to own a gun and bring it out in public ends when my freedom of fear begins." (And I will assume that he meant freedom from fear because with the "of" the sentence makes no sense.) And he is wrong. He has no freedom from fear. I have a right to own a gun and to bring it out in public limited only to the restrictions of the property owners over whose property I cross over or into. How Mr. Stern feel about that is irrelevant and is of no consequence. If he feels threatened by the sight of a firearmtoo bad. He needs to grow up, grow a pair and get over it. I feel safer armed. I feel safer if there are 50 people around me armed. Because they are ready to defend not only their rights, but could potentially help me defend mine. As I would help them defend theirs.
Mr. Stern says "I will tell you we have THE HIGHEST death rate per capita by guns of any nation in the world." So what. That is also irrelevant to my right of self defense.
Mr. Stern says "well the bottom line is guns are a symbol of aggression and force." And is wrong on that point. He may feel that way, but who cares! His feelings are not relevant to my right of self defense. The real bottom line in contradiction to his falsehood is that guns are a tool and as a symbol represent freedom and liberty and a willingness to defend them.
Mr. Stern says "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." My response: I don't trust you to not violate my rights. I do trust my ability to respond to force with force up to lethal force (such is my training). And quite frankly your trust or lack of it is not relevant. it does not matter. I go armed. In public and in private. If I am next to you, you most likely will not know me nor will you (most likely) be able to know that I am armed. Unless I am open carry. And then your feeling on the matter do not in any way matter at all.
Be afraid or notI don't care. It does not matter. Unless you try to violate my rightsmy gun does not matter to you. And if my gun does matter to you and you don't like it, I am forced to wonder what nefarious deed are you planning that my gun would matter to you? I have to ask, what is it about me being able to exercise my right of self defense that disturbs you so? For what reason should my ability to defend myself against aggression disturb you? And the correct and only correct answer is that if you plan no action against me, then my being armed is irrelevant to you.
Boyd W. Smith
So much for that pesky "militia only" illusion.
Poor Ken, a life so utterly ruined by fear that he thinks people want him to kill his son.
I'm sure this won't be the only letter about Ken Stern's letter. I didn't really want to respond, but on the off-chance everyone else was struck speechless, I will dive in.
No one has a right to not be offended or frightened. Whether it is by the sight of a gun or the sight of a person whose race upsets you. I'm sorry if this fact of life (and of LIBERTY) bothers Mr. Stern, but truth doesn't change just because you want it to.
A real right does not place an obligation on another person, beyond that of respecting that right. A "right to not be afraid" would obligate everyone to alter their behavior in deference to people with mental problems such as phobias and other irrational fears. That is ridiculous and is not civilized behavior.
My carrying of a gun does not place an obligation on Mr. Stern. He is not obligated to like my gun, nor to even stay around me. He is welcome to stay, and I assure him that my gun will not leap from its holster and attack him. It is tame and only responds to threats.
The right to own and carry a weapon does not rely upon the Second Amendment. It predates it and would still exist, just as fully as it did when the first protohuman picked up a rock to defend himself from a threat, if the entire Bill of Rights were abolished (which for all practical purposes is a historical fact). To nitpick over what the Second Amendment says is completely missing the point. It doesn't matter.
"Aggression" is the act of attacking someone. It is not a "symbol" or a "what if". A gun can be a tool of aggression just as it can be the best tool for stopping aggression. That is what a gun symbolizes in my eyes.
I see nothing, nothing, in Mr. Stern's letter to indicate the slightest understanding of "libertarian", much less evidence that he is a "full-fledged" one. From his "job of the government" notion, to his reliance on government coercion for his pet causes, and his reliance of the Bill of Rights, to his utter lack of comprehension of "aggression", I get the mental image of a plane crash with no survivors- just a rescuer wandering through the carnage looking for something "libertarian" among the smoldering ruins. It just ain't there.
Once again Paul Bonneau seems to take great joy in attacking one of his fellow libertarians. I have already spent time arguing with Bonneau over something which I thought was a non-issue. I don't feel like getting into another silly argument with the man, however I feel like I need to respond to the things that Bonneau has written about my recent article.
His criticism centers on the point I made about the men who stood outside the town hall meetings carrying firearms. He seems to think that just because I didn't think it was a good idea to openly carry firearms during a protest that I was looking down on those who choose to exercise their freedoms. He also thinks that I am one of those people who like to beg for my freedoms.
To be fair, I may have been a little hasty when I referred to the men who were exercising their Second Amendment rights as clowns. I just believe that you have to be careful when you choose your battles, especially when there is a TV camera around. The media doesn't hesitate when it has an opportunity to try and make the opposition look like fools. That is why you have to be careful of what you do in front of the camera. The media did everything in its ability to make those men look both stupid and insane, and they made sure that it reflected poorly on all of us. Not that they won't try it anyway, but we shouldn't be giving them more ammunition (once again, no pun intended) to use against us. Bonneau has once again missed the point that I was trying to make.
I thought I'd expand on this a bit.
I have been participating in a discussion on a gun forum, about whether a cop has the right to temporarily disarm you when he contacts you or pulls you over on the highway.
Now, the interesting thing about this notion, is where it came from. Who knows? It makes little sense tactically; any cop killer would laugh at it, and use it to his advantage. Yet the legislatures, courts and cops all act as if it makes sense, and any other action is ridiculous (not all states have this requirement, but it's probably more because they haven't got around to it yet).
The reason it is obvious to them is not because it prevents any potential crime or protects the cop (the usual rationalization), but because it is an explicit form of submission. Of course we have to hand our gun over; they are protecting us, so we have to submit!
And, if you agree to being protected by cops, they are right.
Getting the "protection equals submission" idea explains all that other stuff about cops too: why they abuse us, why they take us down for no good reason, why they taze us, why they get away with assault and murder, why they are treated as "special" in the courts, and so forth. It's why cops seem to have split personalities: they are alleged to be our "public servants", to "serve and protect" us; yet their role of protection implies the power runs in the other direction. We logically must submit, if we accept their protection.
Oh, we can complain, and try legislatively to put a leash on them, try to reduce the abuse we get from them. But we are standing on very thin ice logically. Protection implies submission.
The answer is to not accept their protection. Start getting across to them in any forum you can, that their "help" is not required, thanks. Perhaps even when you encounter them on the street or wherever, you might let them know you don't need their protection, which is a sly way of telling them you don't intend to submit to them. Might be some risk there, though; be interesting to see how it plays out.
Your missive fails on just this:
Need I say more?
A few fun lines to remember when the Gov't pisses you off
"You can't stop a man who KNOWS he is in the right and just keeps a'commin'" William Tell Sackett, in Louis L'Amour's Sackett series, "Sackett Brand". It may be a pulp western, but truer words never were said.
"The Tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants from time to time, and I fear the time's on the way!" Neale Osborn
"The government which governs least governs best. The one that governs the least leaves you the fuck alone. When the government forgets this simple rule, it's time to vote that government out of power, at the ballot box if it obeys the will of the people, or with powder and lead if not." Neale Osborn (April, 1994, paraphrasing and adding to Thomas Jefferson's quote)
"You cannot enslave a free man. A slave must co-operate in his enslavement, or you will be FORCED to kill him." (a combination of two quote from Hugh Farnham, "Farnham's Freehold" by Robert A. Heinlein.
Just a few lines to bring a smile to your lips.
Hi, all! This time I've done another Janet Napolitano design.
You can get in on merchandise at:
And drop by my Facebook page and become a fan!
And check the other URL's in my signature below.
Finally, feel free to forward this e-mail on to whoever you think would be
And check the other URL's in my signature below.
Finally, feel free to forward this e-mail on to whoever you think would be interested!
I do not see why people say the government does not provide protection. the government is one big protection racket. Just remember to pay your "protection money" (taxes) on time or as close to it as you can and they won't hurt you.
If you are smart you can get some of this protection money back in the form of assistance in defending your rights, "social services," etc. This requires being prepared to engage in armed resistance, knowing how to play factions in a criminal enterprise against each other, and sharp bargaining skills.
There is a difference between doing business with "the Man" because that's the only game in town and selling out. It's up to you to stay on the right side of the line.
So anyhow the Governor of Virginia has stirred up a flap by declaring April Confederate History Month. Apparently the issue is that in the original proclamation he did not bring attention to the fact that slavery was an issue leading to the Civil War, some would claim the most crucial issue.
As a Texan of Mexican descent whose ancestors were dealing with a French invasion at the time of the War of the Secession I think I can claim a reasonable objectivity about this issue. While slavery was an issue leading to the War, so were protective tariffs and the issue of states rights. The real issue was the struggle between the Southern Planter Class(who happened to own slaves) and Yankee factory owners (who treated their workers like slaves) over who would rule the US. There is much virtue and much fault on both sides. My sympathies are with the brave men on both sides who were conned by leaders unworthy of their loyalty into fighting this War, and the loved ones of the men who never came home.
That said 'm still a Texan, and I can sympathize even more with men who felt a need to restrict Federal Governmental power. Slavery was indeed an issue in the Civil War. However, February is Black History Month. You want to focus on the influence of slavery as a cause of the Civil War perhaps you should do so in February. If someone feels a need as an editorialist, opinion writer or teacher to comment on the importance of slavery as a cause of the Civil War during Confederate History month in Virginia or elsewhere intellectual honesty and a respect for free speech/ press encourage me to support this also.
However, in the 1860's there were men who believed that others were about to misuse economic and recently acquired political dominance to turn the Federal government into a tool of oppression. In the 11 Southern states forming the Confederacy, including Virginia, they took the drastic step of seceding to resist this.
Should we remember and study the causes, just and unjust, leading to the War of the Secession? Of course we should. Should we remember the African- American people who suffered in slavery in the days and events leading to the War? Of course we should. Should we remember the brave men on both sides who fought and often died for what they believed was just?
Of course we should.
Should we remember The Secession as a warning to the Central Government to hold back on its overweening and overreaching ways? Need I ask?
Can you believe this??
Today, I took a check for $425 a man gave me (to buy a piece of farm equipt from me) to HIS bank. I asked them to check the account balance and tell me if there was enough to cash the check. The teller told me "Yes, Sir, there is. May I see some ID, please?"
I proffered my drivers license. He then produced an ink pad and demanded my right thumb for FINGERPRINTING! Then he told me I would also be charged THREE FRIGGING PERCENT to cash the check.
Well, color me stubborn but I refused the fingerprinting (of course) and told him to shove his 3% where the sun doesn't shine. He then had the nerve to try to keep the check because he "thought I was acting suspicious". I ripped the check out of his hand, picked up my license, said a few LOUD choice words about Citizen's Bank, Rt 64, Big Flats New York.
When did they start charging AND PRINTING people for ACCEPTING a check from the bank's own depositers???? Am I a nut, or is this now the norm? One thing is sure, I no longer accept checks from ANYONE unless I know them AND the bank says it will cash them without fingerprints or percentages (OR FEES) charged to me.
According to an article on the net Tax Liberation Day fell on 9 April this year (2010). This is the day that if you paid all your taxes before you kept any money for yourself the average American gets to keep his earnings.
This is a false statement of course as it does not average in how paying other people's taxes raises the price of goods and services we purchase or the work we do to pay our employers' taxes, among other things. Earlier in the decade TLD fell sometime in the first week of May, giving Non Latino Americans another excuse to celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Since I don't remember getting any of my taxes cut or that big of an increase in my income without a commensurate rise in taxes I doubt the figure in the article.
That said, let's play nice and give the bosses the day they claim is Tax Liberation Day. Then let us pass a simple law. You must live off of savings until Tax Liberation Day.
Yup, 100% of your paycheck, profits, dividends, royalties, annuities, pension income, even interest on bank accounts, CD's and government bonds cashed in during this time and even welfare payments (Worm of Ouroboros style) go straight to the Big G. For the First 99 days of the year you have to live off the principal of your savings, money in checking cash on hand and your credit. Rent, food, clothing, shelter, medicine, energy, child support, credit card payments and entertainment come out of this monetary reserve. The rest of the year you must earn enough to support yourself and your loved ones and save for the "lean season."
Perhaps if people had to pay their taxes this way instead of payroll deduction and and a few cents extra here and there for excise tax, customs, sales tax, service fees and so on they might get angry enough to rebel, or at least not be in such an all fired hurry to let the government into each others' pockets.
Especially since by my reckoning TLD is really sometime around 26 May (assuming 40%) and a lot of others claim later in the year (between 50 and 70 % or more).
AlI agree. I oppoese 99% of taxes, and think far more people would if they had to write a check to Uncle Shithead every week to pair their UN-fair share. You'd see the T.E.A. Party grow by leaps and bounds if that ever happened. Let me tell you how taxes went for me the last two years. I had a stroke, causing me to receive lump-sum distribution of my annuity account. This put me in the next tax bracket, causing me to have to make payments on my NY and Federal taxes. This year, I had a decent sized refund from both. The IRS took the remainder of last year's taxes out of this refund, then sent NY the rest ($678) to pay off the end of last year's state tax ($702). NY then paid off my NY taxes from the $2100 refund, sent me the rest of my NY refund, KEPT the check from the IRS for 60-90 days. "But don't worry, sir, when we do send it to you in June or July, we'll pay you interest (1.2%) on the returned money, LESS THE $50 FEE WE CHARGE TO RECEIVE THE WIRE TRANSFER FROM THE IRS!!!!!" They accepted the IRS money 3 weeks after they took the money from my refund to pay themselves off, kept my NYS refund an additional 37 days, AND keep my $678 for an extra 60-90 days and CHARGE me $50 for keeping the money (but I will get a few dollars interest to make up for it!). I wish I could get away with that kind of shit.
If this is true (and I think it's grossly underestimated) then it's only referring to Federal taxes.
Add in taxes from the States, Counties, and Municipalities, and the sum is STAGGERING!
According to one source, in 2009, Americans worked from the 1st of January, to the 21st of April to pay federal taxes.
When you add in taxes from all the other levels of government, the total (on the average American) comes to 224 days, or from 1 January to 12 July. And that's 26 days longer than in 2008. (July 2nd is the middle day of the year.) So that's 61 percent of the average Americans money being stolen by various levels of government.
"Of course, this is a national average. States with lower tax rates and slightly more fiscally responsible legislatures arrive at the day much sooner, and some like Taxachusetts much later. Alaska ranks number one, with 192 days, but that's mid-July, so still, for over half the year, workers toil to pay the cost of government. Connecticut is dead last, with 250 days calculated to pay the high cost of government expenditures, so that day won't arrive until September 7 for those unfortunate enough to live in that state.
It is no surprise to find New York, California, Massachusetts, New Jerseythose with high-profile politicians that love to implement programs that tax people into servituderanking near the bottom with 243 days, 235, 229, and 249 days respectively.
For New York, that amounts to 66.6 percent of your working yearTWO THIRDS!
For Califnordia, that's 64.4 percent of your working year.
For Massachussetts, that's 62.7 percent.
And for New Jersey, that's a whopping 68.2 percent.
Connecticut is the worst, at 68.49 percent.
"Of the national average 224 days, a further breakdown indicates that 111 days' work went to federal spending30.36 percent of the totalwith 49 days to state and local spending and another 65 days to pay for regulations imposed by all levels of government."
Here's my source: www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5240
Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!