Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 652, January 8, 2012

"The old-fashioned, traditional, right-left
spectrum doesn't work as a description of the
political world around us, and it never did."


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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 A.X. Perez

Letter from Susan Callaway (AKA MamaLiberty)

Another Letter from A.X. Perez

Letter from L. Neil Smith

Yet Another Letter from A.X. Perez


Ray of Light

With the NDAA, Neocons and the Administration beating the war drums against Iran (and to be fair, the Iranians egging them on) plus other depressing news it is nice to run into some good news.

For the last couple of years I have noticed that the local police have supported people's right to forcibly defend themselves. About a decade ago they were admitting we had such a right then would proceed to warn us not to engage in vigilantism. Now they simply state that people have shot, knifed or clubbed someone in self defense and that the police do not expect to file charges.

The report last Wednesday/Thursday (Jan. 4-5, 2012) that a young widow in Oklahoma successfully defended her child, home, and self by force and enjoyed the support of the local authorities for doing so is heartening. I won't read more into this than it is, but it is worth noting that some cops somewhere are expressing support for people's right to defend themselves instead of telling us to act like helpless bunny rabbits.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


Re "What We Can Learn from the Greens" by David M. Schmidt

"Encouraging people to do small things to "reduce their government footprint" will also make them more receptive to libertarian ideas in the future and grow a base of sympathetic individuals from whom the movement can draw support. "

Unfortunately, the "green" people mostly encourage an emotional response to phony issues through lies and manipulation. Your recycling example is classic. Their agenda is greater control of people, their property and the world in general. These are not the methods or goals of libertarians—or anyone else who values freedom and justice.

How do you see the connection? What are some things we can encourage people to do to "reduce their government footprint" as you suggest? I'm wondering if you have some new and different ideas, since you didn't offer any examples.

Do we resort to emotional appeals? Based on what?

Look at some of these:
The Mental Militia
ZeroGov
The War on Guns
Backwoods Home

The list is almost endless.

Some of us have little to do with "Libertarians" as such, but all of us have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to reach people with the basic message of self ownership and responsibility.

What are we missing?

Sincerely,
Susan Callaway (AKA MamaLiberty) mamaliberty@rtconnect.net
The Price of Liberty.org

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


Damn Fools in Congress

Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar AKA El Cid Campeador is Spain's greatest Medieval hero. He fought for Christian Kings and was himself a Christian. He also fought for Moslem kings and established what for all practical purposes a private kingdom populated by both Moslems and Christians living in relative amity. Would he have been detained under the NDAA? Good luck on that, the bucchaill was a bit of a bad ass.

I have publicly stated that I will forcibly defend the rights of Moslems under the First Amendment to practice their faith. Realistically, that means I've pledged to get my ass kicked trying to defend my Moslem brothers' rights. Also my Catholic, Baptist, Mormon, Jewish and other brethren and sisteren's rights. Am I really worth detaining? Geez, y'must be bored with yourself.

Under the new NDAA it is so easy for anyone in the US to be declared a supporter of terrorists and an enemy combant. Will Mitch Romney or Ron Paul be detained indefinitely sometime next August? Or maybe the Obama cabinet if the Republicans take over. Or maybe the army will have an attack of common sense and detain all the gecko humping children of motherless goats who voted for the NDAA as the terrorists and enemies of the United States they are. One can always hope.

Dr. Franklin warned us of the folly of trading freedom for security. But no one ever warned us about trading freedom to obtained insecurity. Guess sane men could not imagine anyone doing anything that stupid.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


Is Ron Paul's "What if China had bases in Texas" ad dangerously misleading?

Regarding your

[article with the big long URL]

No, Ron's video is neither dangerous nor misleading. You just can't take the plain, hard truth. As I was asking people a decade ago, what would you do if some superior power arbitrarily told Americans that they couldn't fly below the Mason-Dixon Line? What would you do if those superior powers blockaded America until half a million children died for lack of food and medicine?

You'd fight back, if there's anything to you.

And your contention that only Al Qaeda would benefit from Ron's foreign policy is not only insulting, it's insane. Three hundred million Americans would benefit, as would seven billion human beings in general. The only "danger" involved is the danger of people enjoying too much peace, freedom, progress, and prosperity than you believe they should have.

Sadly, conservatives appear to be no better than liberals, in that they have no honor, no sense of equity. They're willing to impose themselves on others (at a brutal cost to everyone else around them), and yet they cry like little babies if those others impose themselves upon them. And they hate an opponent who actually fights back, whether it's in the middle east or in Iowa.

That's why I'm a libertarian.

L. Neil Smith
Look me up on Google, Wikipedia, or Amazon.com
lneil@netzero.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


Re: "Reflections on a Terrible Day" by Charles Heller, Executive Director, JPFO

So answer me this, are shuls in Israel gun free zones? Why then in America, where besides potential Muslim extremists there is also danger of attack by the Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, and the Aryan Nation types, are synagogues being declared gun free zones? Was there not a case in Vienna back around 1980-81where one armed man broke up a PLO attack on a synagogue? Why then do (some) American Jews buy into the no gun myth. To be fair, so do most Christian clergy, yet they and their congregations face the same risks.

Recently on the History Channel it was pointed out that "Bless his heart," is a nice way of saying "That boy's a little slow in the head." G-d bless these rabbis, priests, and ministers' hearts.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


Big Head Press