Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 578, July 11, 2010

"It's all about oil"


Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Note: All letters to this address will be considered for
publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear, otherwise we will use the information in the "From:" header!]


Letter from Curt Howland with comment by John Hoffman

Letter from Don Childers

Letter from Rex "Baloo" May

Letter from A.X. Perez with comment by Richard Bartucci

Letter from Paul Bonneau


Dear Editor,

I just read this article on the Daily Kos web site, which considers itself utterly "liberal":

Why liberals should love the Second Amendment

Exactly the kind of intellectual argument which Murray Rothbard used to rationalize how Libertarians and "liberals" are natural allies.

Sadly, I believe "liberals" are so wedded to the use of power that anything that actually threatens that power, even basic human rights, are going to remain ignored.

I recall that El Neil, during his interesting political campaign, would open any talk to "liberals" with guns, and "conservatives" with drugs, just to shake them up a bit.

Because shaking people up is fun!

Curt Howland
Howland@priss.com

To which John Hoffman replied:

Liberals are on the same side as libertarians when it comes to personal freedom.

Conservatives are on the same side as libertarians when it comes to economic freedom.

Libertarians can possibly ally themselves with either of the above groups with regards to those particular categories, but because of the collisions with regards to the opposites, it will always potentially backfire on us.

Interestingly, this also points out how modern "liberals" and "conservatives" aren't; rather, they're all authoritarians.

John Hoffman
theshadow@shambala.net

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to Curt Howland
Howland@priss.com

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to John Hoffman
theshadow@shambala.net


If TLE's going to have any reputation at all, someone's going to have to start doing at least the minimum of fact-checking.

snopes.com

This isn't the first recent article I've had concerns over, just the first one I've bothered to write the editor about.

Don Childers
DLSeeAmerica@Hughes.net

[Would you like to be our volunteer fact-checker? We need all the help we can get here, seeing as how we have such a low pay scale, viz, to wit: $0.00 -- Editor]

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to Don Childers
DLSeeAmerica@Hughes.net


Mel!

I think it's about time we settled on Mel for President. Get your bumper stickers here!

And do visit my websites below!

Rex May
rmay@mac.com
PHONE: 1-970-218-0889
All about me here:
baloocartoons.com
balooscartoonblog.blogspot.com
facebook.com
zazzle.com

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to Rex May
rmay@mac.com


Predictability

If a man who weighs less than a hundred and fifty pounds told you he loved the taste of whiskey but hated getting drunk you would probably say "eh" and go about your business. If you saw him at a party down four one ounce shots in a minute at five parties in succession you might decide he was a liar as well as a drunk. He might be a self deceived liar, but he'd still be a liar.

Current drug laws have done little to control drug abuse over the years compared to the damage they have done civil liberties. Gun control laws have done little to reduce violent crime, in fact there is a direct relationship between strictness of gun laws and violent crime (more and stricter gun laws, more and more violent crime). Current immigration laws have created an underclass of underpaid workers with fewer rights than others rather than guarantee better pay for American workers.

The sum total of these laws is to leave people living in fear, jobless, and less secure in their rights than before. These laws have been creating these circumstances for two generations.

If a person consumes alcohol in a manner calculated to get him drunk on a regular basis you know he likes to get drunk. He isn't miscalculating how fast the booze is going to his head. If for two generations laws don't do what they say they are supposed to do but create fear, poverty, tyranny and insecurity it is fair to assume that was their goal from the get go and not simply honest mistakes. When history has proved that certain acts have a predictable result and people continue to engage in them we can predict that these results were always what the people in question were trying to achieve.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

To which Richard Bartucci replied:

Failure is never a reason for abandoning or even modifying a politically motivated policy.

To quote H.L. Mencken:

"...the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."

This being understood, it is never the objective of the successful politician to solve any problem, real or imaginary, because (as Mr. Smith has observed) solved problems deprive the politician of the excuses under the color of which he proposes actions which would get him shot down like a dog were he to undertake them as a private citizen.

The predictability of failure involved in any government policy is in no way a concern of our governing class. These creatures have neither expectation of nor desire for solutions which benefit anyone but themselves and those who have purchased them, and so we - the honest citizenry - should not expect of them either acknowledgement of failure or corrective action going forward.

In a perverse sense, they do not consider themselves to have failed at all. They have achieved comfort, power, praise, and positions of respect, have they not? That the society and the nation around them go down in flames is none of their concern whatsoever.

Richard Bartucci
bartucci01@verizon.net

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com
Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to Richard Bartucci
bartucci01@verizon.net


The only problem with hanging one's hat on the 14th Amendment (in all these discussions about ), is that it was never properly ratified, by any stretch of the imagination.

Does that matter? Maybe not; the whole Constitution is a joke, as Spooner points out. But if you don't agree with Spooner, then I don't see how you can go along with using the 14th as if there is no problem with it. It's "whistling past the graveyard." Either legalisms mean something to you, or they don't. Doesn't make sense to get to pick and choose what legalisms you follow. Constitutions are a package deal, not an a' la carte choice.

Oh, and the Constitution and Bill of Rights, without the Constitution-trashing and state autonomy-trashing 14th Amendment, clearly applies only to the Federal Government. The 14th is a product of the same people who gave us the War of Northern Aggression. It would never have existed had Lincoln allowed the South to secede, as the Constitution required him to do. Thus, the 14th is just another example of government "fixing" a problem caused by prior government action.

By applauding McDonals, people are cheering the increased centralization of power. This is like making a pact with the Devil. Good luck with that. Pardon my cynicism.

Paul Bonneau
pjb1@tctwest.net

Like this? Why not pay the author!
Select amount then click "Donate Now"


Pay to Paul Bonneau
pjb1@tctwest.net


TLE AFFILIATE

Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest


Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates.
We cheerfully accept donations!

Big Head Press