Big Head Press


L. Neil Smith's
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 682, August 5, 2012

"Today's politicians are sociopathic
personalities who wish to rule over others."


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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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!]


I am still recovering from my shock at Barack Obama saying, "AK 47's belong in the hands of soldiers, not criminals." This shock goes to the uncompromising hypocrisy and disingenuity, not to mention the total dissing of the American people's intelligence in this statement. How else can the man who is assisting in the cover up for Operation Fast and Furious, possibly one of the most systematic transfer of weapons to criminals by a government in this nation's history, have the gall to say this.

This is exactly the kind of behaviour the late, unlamented Small Arms Trade Treaty was nominally aimed at preventing/ending. It was to protect the option of pulling similar garbage in the future, not a sudden blooming of regard for the correctness of the opinion or the puissance of the dreaded "Gun Lobby" that the Current Government allowed the talks to fall apart.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Re: "Missing the Point" by Sean Gangol

"but that doesn't give you the right to force them to provide a service that violates one of the tenets of their faith."

Ah, Sean.... and I fear that YOU have also missed the point in part.

You got it here:

"Personally, I don't think anybody should be forced to pay for somebody else's birth control whether it is a religious institution or the tax payers. That doesn't mean I'm against birth control. If nobody wants to pay my bar tab, would it make sense for me to assume that everybody wants to take my liquor away?"

But then went back to the idea that nobody should be forced to pay for something that was counter to their "faith."

Why should anyone be forced to pay for anything against their will - exception being restitution of what they themselves have stolen from others.

This isn't about "faith" or the Catholic church. It's about theft, for any purpose or reason at all. Nobody has a right to steal.

Yours,
MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway)
mamaliberty@rtconnect.net

To which Sean Gangol replied:

"This isn't about "faith" or the Catholic church. It's about theft, for any purpose or reason at all. Nobody has a right to steal"

Have I said otherwise? I was speaking more from a First Amendment stand point. That was the main point of my article. Of course nobody has a right to steal. Whether that person is a mugger on the street or a government bureaucrat is completely irrelevant to me. Though I would have a little more respect for the mugger because he doesn't claim to be stealing for the greater good of the public. Using force to take from an individual or an organization is theft. I would never say anything to the contrary.

That just wasn't the main point that I was making in my article. My main point was the First Amendment. Forcing religious institutions to provide something that violates the core of their beliefs is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. I believe the same thing would be true if the government forced all the churches to perform same-sex marriages. Religious liberty was the main point of my article. The article was also about defending the rights of a religious organization, even if you may not agree with its practices. I don't mean to sound condescending, Mama Liberty, but I don't think you really understood the point that I was trying to make.

Sean Gangol
RGangol@sbcglobal.net

To which Susan Callaway replied:

LOL!! Maybe our points all got lost in the shuffle... or something.

I think that this whole "religious rights" and "first amendment" thing almost always winds up as the whole point of so much discussion and punditry... and that the greater problem of the evil of theft and coercion in general gets diluted or lost far too often.

I just happen to disagree on your point's importance in the grand scheme of trying to reclaim our self ownership. No offense intended.

Yours,
MamaLiberty (a.k.a. Susan Callaway)
mamaliberty@rtconnect.net

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


payment type


Re: "Thoughts on Education" by A.X. Perez, Ann Morgan, and Richard D. Bartucci

Dear Editor,

the following ... was written [by Mr. Perez] in the last issue of TLE:

The fact is a very small minority of persons with diagnosed and afflicted ADD suffer from enough neurological damage or failure to properly process the chemicals in their brains that stimulants are needed to rectify the situation.

I have a number of issues with this comment:

1. First of all, the 'brain damage' you refer to has not been proven as a cause of ADD, due to a deliberate lack of proper studies.

2. No doubt SOME people with ADD have brain damage. However, corellation is not causation. There are undoubtedly people WITHOUT ADD who have brain damage. Likewise, there are people with the same symptoms as ADD who do not have brain damage. Given all this, you might as well claim that red hair causes ADD, because a small minority of people with ADD symptoms have red hair.

3. Given that the drug Ritalin itself causes brain damage, I fail to see the mechanism whereby causing additional brain damage in someone whose supposed problem is that they already have brain damage is likely to improve the situation long term.

4. I dislike your use of the phrase that 'stimulants are NEEDED to rectify the situation'. First of all, what you euphemestically call 'rectifying' the situation is basically simply altering behavior that teachers happen not to personally like. Mind altering drugs generally alter behavior. This is hardly news. Altering is not the same thing as 'rectifying'. You could pick out any other random behavior, say the habit of tapping your fingers when nervous, give the person with this behavior any sort of potent mind altering drugs, and the finger tapping would likely be altered or eliminated as a consequence.

This alteration of behavior does not constitute 'rectifying' because the situation you are speaking of is basically simply behavior that public school teachers happen to personally dislike. It is far from objective fact that this is completely bad, and 'rectifying' it is completely good. Even if this were unarguably good, in the same way curing cancer is unarguably good, you cannot claim that it is 'NEEDED', which to me sounds like a justification for administering Ritalin without the consent of the patient. Forcing medication on someone without their consent is an initiation of force. Even if the medication will save their lives, and they will die without it, you still do not have the right to force them to take it, against their will.

There are not any exceptions in the Zero Aggression Policy for what you might happen to think is NEEDED on someone else's behalf. Nor are there special exceptions for special people, such as public school teachers. Nor is 'brain damage' a justification, either. I might point out that drinking alcohol causes brain damage. If brain damage is a justification for violating the Zero Aggression Policy, then you've just justified prohibition. Not to mention that there are probably very few people WITHOUT some sort of minor brain damage, in the same way that there are very few people without at least a few minor scars on their body. Your body and brain have evolved to function fairly well, despite a certain amount of 'damage'. Once you claim that 'brain damage' is a justification for taking away people's freedom of choice, you now have an instant tyranny.

Ann Morgan
septithol@yahoo.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Tisha Casida—The Face of Libertarianism

[link]

L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Remember?

The hoplophobes have started. They want to limit ammo sales and they want to ban, or at least restrict, Internet ammunition sales. All I can say, or should need to say is, the Ammo Drougght of 2008-2009. Remember having to scrounge for ammunition from about August 2008 to 2009?

I remember real good and while I am limited by the expenses of maintaining a household I try to keep a decent stash of practice and social ammo. I am sure I am not the only one in that situation. Prudent men and women learn from these things and buy extra ammo as they can afford it and where they can afford it.

The fact is, what sounds bad to people ignorant about shooting, especially those who work at it, is in fact the normal behavior of decent honest, and sane folk who know anything about the realities of gun ownership and shooting practice. Until we can get rid of the state, do we want laws written based on the hysteria of the deliberately ignorant, or ont the careful reasoning of those who know the facts?

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Fix It!

Sadly, no one running for President this year is even suggesting braking up the BATFE. It is to be noted that Ronald Reagan originally wanted to break up the BATF (they hadn't added the E back then) over abuses in the late Seventies. The story is that the Agency was spared because they didn't want to inflict its agents on the FBI DEA, IRS or groups in Eederal law enforcement.

Some people claim that part of the problem leading up to Operation Fast and Furious is that the BATFE lacks a permanent Director. Basically, anyone President Obama is going to appoint will be too antigun for Senators beholden to the NRA and others to ratify. Anyone who Romney would appoint would face Democrat opposition for being beholden to the NRA. So ATFE will struggle along, stupidly violating people's rights.

What ATFE needs, second to going away, is a Director who will clean out the Augean stale of incompetence, corruption, and career advancing backbiting it has become. We are talking a Director who will be firing and even criminally prosecuting the people that have for years gone after technical busts and frame up jobs against people who had no desire to break the law or who had been suborned into criminality by ATF agents provocateur. Then perhaps the Agency can return to helping honest gun buyers and sellers comply with the law, prosecute people who are trying to get weapons specifically to violate the rights of other and those who knowing their intent sell them weapons, and catching whisky and cigarette bootleggers, but only those selling poisoned product.

Satan will be sponsoring snawman building contests in his back yard begore this happens.

A.X. Perez
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

The above in no way is intended ro suggest that the BATFE should be allowed to even exist, but only to describe what needs to be done to make the ATFE less unbearable until we get rid of the damn thing.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type


Big Head Press