Big Head Press

L. Neil Smith's
Number 616, April 24, 2011

"Cut off all government transfer
payments to billionaires"

Previous Previous Table of Contents Contents Next Next

Letters to the Editor

Bookmark and Share

Send Letters to
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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 The Editor

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Letter from Bruce Sommer

Letter from Richard Bartucci

Letter from A.X. Perez with remark from L. Neil Smith

Another Letter from L. Neil Smith

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Yet Another Letter from A.X. Perez

The Definitive Collection of Robert A. Heinlein

I've been waiting for this for years.

Took 'em long enough.

$1,500 or $145/month for 12 months.

Well, now, too bad I can't afford it. Maybe you can....

The Editor

Hey, Ken—

I may do an article on this when I have time, but I'd like to share the idea with others in the meantime. As you know, I believe the usual libertarian disinclination to say, "There oughta be a law" does not apply where government—and its pet limited liability corporations—are concerned. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights consists of laws that are supposed to limit their predations.

There oughta be a law forbidding biometric identification procedures, practices, and paraphernalia of any kind. They've hardly gotten started and I'm tired of hearing about it. I'm sick of reading articles where the same kind of "scientists" who cheerfully worked for the Nazis now proclaim they can identify an individual by his retinas, the geometry of his face, his butt-prints on the Xerox machine, or any other "biometric" means.

It should be against the law for government or corporations to collect people's photographs, DNA, or fingerprints. Such a law would find massive support among those Tea Partiers intelligent enough to recognize that—if Janet Napolitano and the Southern Poverty Law center have their way—they're going to be the next ones in the ovens. And it should test the integrity of ACLU liberals and the newest Republican members of Congress.

Think I'll put this on FaceBook, too.

But more—much more—later,

L. Neil Smith

Neale Osborn states in "Prohibition of Any Kind Sucks":

After all, if it's so fucking important to keep your neighbor from enjoying a pleasant buzz from a joint, or the torpor of heroin, or the whatever you get from cocaine, or the meth tweaks, let the users pay the bills."

Users are already paying a premium for what they use due to the higher prices as a result of the increased risk and reward of the profession that makes the drugs available.

My view is "if it's so fucking important to keep your neighbor from enjoying" some drugs then let those individuals, who can't keep their noses out of their neighbor's business and want to deprive their neighbors of the pursuit of happiness, pay the expense.

Bruce Sommer

Join me in playing eRepublik! Rule a country, be an Entrepreneur, publish a newspaper, join the military or gather your fellow Citizens to start a resistance war.

Re: "Start with NASA" by Jim Davidson

Mr. Davidson:

I appreciate your recent article in The Libertarian Enterprise on the advisability of specifically "zeroing-out" the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Especially since their Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has been foursquare in the middle of the great anthropogenic global warming fraud.

Can't we take it much, much further? I'd like to draw to your attention a recent article by economist Thomas Sowell (see titled "Another Spending Cut Plan," in which he advises that the federal budget be cut by specifically zeroing-out the tax feeder programs most beloved of the Republican Party. He writes:

My plan would start by cutting off all government transfer payments to billionaires. Many, if not most, people are probably unaware that the government is handing out the taxpayers' money to billionaires. But agricultural subsidies go to a number of billionaires. Very little goes to the ordinary farmer.

Big corporations also get big bucks from the government, not only in agricultural subsidies but also in the name of "green" policies, in the name of "alternative energy" policies, and in the name of whatever else will rationalize shoveling the taxpayers' money out the door to whomever the administration designates, for its own political reasons.

The usual political counter-attacks against spending cuts will not work against this new kind of spending cut approach. How many heart-rending stories can the media run about billionaires who have lost their handouts from the taxpayers? How many tears will be shed if General Motors gets dumped off the gravy train?

It would also be eye-opening to many people to discover how much government money is going into subsidizing all sorts of things that have nothing to do with helping "the poor" or protecting the public. This would include government-subsidized insurance for posh and pricey coastal resorts, located too dangerously close to the ocean for a private insurance company to risk insuring them.

This approach would not only circumvent the sob stories, it would also circumvent the ideological battles over whether to cut off money to Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio. The money to be saved by cutting off agricultural subsidies to the wealthy and the big corporations is vastly greater than the money to be saved by cutting off Planned Parenthood or National Public Radio, much as they both deserve to be cut off.

If spending cuts are to be done strategically, a good strategy to follow would be that of General Douglas MacArthur in World War II. General MacArthur realized that he didn't have to attack every Pacific island held by the Japanese. He captured the islands that he had to capture, in order to get within striking distance of Japan.

In peace as in war, there is no point wasting time and resources attacking heavily defended enemy positions that you don't have to take.

Dr. Sowell tends to hit the nail on the head rather more often than not. In this case, putting pressure on the Red Party "leadership" to sacrifice their own well-connected corporate welfare clients would seem to be tactically, operationally, and strategically advantageous in the extreme.

The Republican Party, like any other cesspool, has a thick layer of scum on top. A bit of stirring-around is just what they need.

Richard Bartucci

Silveer Lining 2 (Bleh)

As we are all aware, the ATFE is acting to ban the importation of shotguns not having sporting use into the USA. After everyone stops screaming how they will not conform and how the law is unjust and uconstitutional, sentiments I share, please remember that the companies importing guns are trapped doing business with the Government and have no choice but to obey.

As far as I can tell, the new ATFE regulation, based on the 1968 Gun Control Act and its "sporting use only" language, is aimed mostly at Benelli and Saiga shotguns. This is distressing to those of us holding light who do not already have one of these weapons. I would think that the implicit recognition of the right of self defense in Heller and MacDonald obviated this requirement but apparently that needs to be fought out in court.

Assuming that fight happens it would be good to have a good lawyer so that we can get rid of the "sporting use only" requirement and bring the policy of the US more in line with the Constitutionally recognized natural born right of people to keep and bear arms and to expect the US government to assist them to enforce thise right when state governments violate it. Again, I am not conceding in any way that the people's RKBA relies on the Fed's good will, I am talking about the Fed meeting its responsibility to enforce the Costitution.

However, while desirable (attack the enemy on multiple fronts), this is not the silver lining of the title. It would remain perfectly legal to make these weapons in the US, either by building factories to make the guns from scratch or by making receivers and some parts in the US, importing the rest, and assembling the guns here. This would create jobs for Americans during a recession. It would also be an extended social digit to our "friends" in ATFE. It would, hopefully, help create and spread an attitude of rejecting and resisting attempts by certain persons to interfere withe the right to keep and bear arms .

Victim disarmament supporters have faced several defeats, the end of the "94 Ugly Gun Ban, a President who has chosen to pretty much stay above the fray on gun control, a Congress that won't touch the issue with a ten foot pole, two crucial Supreme Court cases that made it clear that the people have a right to arm themselves (with the Court admittedly splitting hares over the difference between infringe and regulate in a manner that only a lawyer could love). They have also pulled Operation Gun Walker (AKA Gunwalker, Gunrunner, Gun Runner, etc.), tried to get regulations requiring that gundealers on the Border report muliple semiauto rifle sales, and the ban of the reimportation of some million M1 Garands and Carbines. If this shotgun import restriction they are pushing goes through it would be their first major victory in a while.

Manufacturing the weapons in question Stateside would be a way to turn this victory for our foes into a net defeat. The guns our enemies wish to ban would remain available, and the portion of the gun industry supplying honest civilians (do you even pretend to think this regulation would keep imported tactical shotguns out of the hands of cops, criminals, or especially criminalistic cops?) would be expanded. Most importantly, the anti-gun movement is starting to get some of its traction back, this enterprise would throw oil under their feet.

The victim disarmers have taken their lumps and are getting ready to hit back. Do we let the fight turn into Irish Stand Down (as described in Zelazny's classic Lord of Light) or do we counter punch and keep the initiative?

A.X. Perez

To which L. Neil Smith replied:

The only counterpunch that makes any sense is a nationwide demand by the Tea Parties or someone like them to abolish the BATFE root and branch. Likely it would not succeed, but it would back the motherjumpers up a parsec or two.

Remember: this time it has to cost them something.

L. Neil Smith

Go Directly To HULU... not pass GO, do not collect $200.

But find and watch the latest episode of Fringe, entitled "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide". It is uniquely wonderful and the best episode of Fringe by far. If it doesn't win some kind of award, there's no justice (and no taste) in the world.

Bonus: Anna Torv at her plain, simple, unadorned best.

Bonus: lots of closeups of Jasika Nicole, the cutest thing in the Known Galaxy.

L. Neil Smith

[You obviously haven't met my granddaughter, who is the actual cutest thing in the Known Galaxy—Editor]

Luther Jones, who outlawed me twenty-six years ago, has been convicted on Federal corruption charges and will be doing time. He still faces more charges in at least one other case. Since that case involved the contract for my healthcare provider at work for several years you will understand why I feel little sympathy for him. Arguably the things he is accused of doing and convicted of doing would have been considered acceptable in El Paso up through the early Seventies or so. El Paso used to be a relatively small town and everybody pretty much knew everybody. However, times changed and the good ol' boys network was swamped with new players. To accomodate this growth the rules had to change and Jones didn't change his ways of doing business. Now he's going to prison and by me it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. After all, he made aruling as county attorney on Texas law that criminalized me for about ten hours and screwed up my knife collecting and choice in every day carry knives. He changed the rules on me and I had to adapt. The rules changed on him and he had to adapt and he failed to do so. Karma is now balanced. A.X. Perez

Fighting Dirty

What the US needs is a group of people to make a project of causing the arrest or at least firing of ten thousand police and prosecutors for violation of peoples civil rights a year unless they can document that there have been fewer violators of people's rights. This includes false arrest, excessive force, search and seizure without probable cause, official oppression and harassment and so on.

Cops are alway claiming it's only a few bad apples that are making the rest look bad. It is also true that they hesitate to act against their own because of the "thin blue line" mentality. Given that, yes, even the crookedest cop may give up his life saving a kid, I can not fault them too much. So as a favor to the honest cops lets start going after the bums (note: at least two cops in my hometown have been fired and charged with crimes for abusing their badges in the last year.

A.X. Perez


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