THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 734, August 18, 2013
Not a single American alive today was ever a slave—
except, of course, of the military and the RS. Not a
single American alive today has ever kept slaves—
except, of course, for the politicians and bureaucrats.
Send Letters to email@example.com
Re: "An Open Letter in Reply to an Email from Albert Perez (The Kaptain's Log)" by Manuel Miles (aka Kaptain Kanada)
you could never become my enemy for telling me the truth. Rather are you a better friend for correcting me and helping me find the correct path.
Sadly, my comments were based on old memories on information available at the time of the event in my corner of unreality. Perhaps we can agree that Ms. Witt was acting on the same misinformation and that her protest should be extended to include Croat and Bosnian atrocities as well as those committed by Serbs.
In any case, if I ever get killed by getting caught in the crossfire of a civil war (seeing as i am getting just a little long in the tooth to be an active participant), especially between one set of wannabe tyrants and another, I hope that the protest, no matter how confused on the facts, will be as gentle yet clear.
Re: People who don't believe in private beaches -- THIS MEANS YOU! by Jeff Fullerton
This seems doubtful, since beachfront owners would have no special claim to the beach in front of them, if it went on sale. If they were not top bidder who knows what might end up happening to their view.
And there IS something different about that land: it is inundated every day.
In a free society, it's still not the case that every bit of this earth, down to the last square meter of ocean, would be individually owned. Such a situation makes no sense. No doubt there would be lots of property owned by aggregates of people each having a share in it. Yes, people could still be free to sail the ocean or up and down rivers and lakes. The problem with government ownership is not that the public owns the thing, since the public DOES NOT OWN IT. Instead the ruling class owns it, and typically got it through violent means.
In Oregon particularly, the entire ocean beach up to the high water mark is not individually owned. This comes from the early days when it was the only means of travel from north to south -- the beach was a highway. Despite the usual problems when government controls things, if you ask Oregonians including beachfront owners if they want to see the beach go up for sale (imagine the mess with fences!) I am certain almost none would agree (including me). And those who would, have not thought out the implications.
Fortunately most libertarians have the sense not to squander their credibility in arguing for the sale of beaches and oceans. If you want to argue to get the government out of it and let it actually be owned by the public by selling shares in it, sure, why not? Although there are more important issues out there, like stopping the wars. In the meantime I'd like to see those beachfront property owners lose their government-subsidized repair work every time a storm comes along...
Have you thought of putting it on Amazon's kindle system for blogs. May earn money without asking for donations?
just a thought,
[ How about it readers, anybody willing to pay $0.99 per issue to read this here magazine? Comes to over $51 over a year. That seems like a lot of money for a weekly magazine. Or is it? I haven't subscribed to a weekly print mag in a long time now. Acutally doesn't sound like a very good idea to me -- Editor ]
Re: "Abuse of Power" by D.J. Webb
Interesting the author has commented on this notion that previously, those with power tended not to over-use it. My suspicion is that the decline of this tendency is connected to anonymity and to such mundane things as transportation.
In the old days, people did not travel much. Many people lived and stayed in villages rather than cities. In those cases, there is a social cost to being an asshole, so people had a strong incentive not to do it.
In the big cities, an official is just another anonymous bureaucrat dealing with queues of anonymous peons. There is no negative feedback for rotten behavior because he will never see these people again. Likewise if a person drives long distances to work, treats people poorly there, then drives back home again there is no feedback path for rotten behavior.
I think the spread of unions into positions of power also had a negative effect since the unions excuse and provide cover for bad behavior.
The reverse effect can be seen in a state like Wyoming. There, the distances between towns are long, and the towns are small. Those with power definitely have a disincentive for poor behavior, as shunning will result otherwise. You will even see the cops wave at you as you drive down the road; this is unheard-of elsewhere.
One other influence might be efficiency. Officials in small towns tend not to be overworked, while those in big cities have to deal with more clients. The heavier load puts them in a bad mood. It is more efficient to have a bureaucrat dealing with more peons, yet the cost of government is higher due to corruption so the peons never see the benefit of the higher efficiency, and reap only the costs.
It is no surprise our institutions hardly work any more, since they were apparently invented for conditions much different than what most of us face today.
Northern Colorado Secession Query
Does anybody here know how I might contact the leaders of the Northern Colorado secessionist movement? As the author of over 30 freedom-oriented books -- especially The Probability Broach and Down With Power (both of them award-winners), thousands of essays on individual liberty, and as publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise, a freedom journal that's been online for 17 years, I think they could make good use of my services.
I will also take this opportunitty to say how ashamed I am that it appears that Larimer County has no interest in getting free of the tyranny of Denver, that festering boil on the ass of an otherwise wonderful state.
The next time some self-righteous (and fundamentally non-religious) left-wing tree-hugger attempts to claim that the welfare state is "what God wants," we need to immediately file a First Amendment suit on the basis that, if they claim a religious reason for taking our hard-earned money to give to "the needy," then that is an establishment of religion and hence unconstitutional.