Down With Power Audiobook!

L. Neil Smith’s THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 928, June 25, 2017

“A man has got to know his limitations.”

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publication unless they say explicitly Not For Publication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 TJ Mason and L. Neil Smith

Letter from Thomas Knapp



Letter from TJ Mason and L. Neil Smith

Re: “REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!” by L. Neil Smith [in this issue]

Neil,

To me, this means you’ve discovered the reasons why I’m a minarchist rather than an anarchocapitalist.

1. Our statists (individually and collectively) are not automatically worse than their statists just because they’re ours.

2. Since their statists command the stolen labor of millions, it is hard for individuals to respond effectively. Particularly when technology reaches the point where a relatively few people can develop the ability to kill thousands (if not millions, or even billions).

3. People who come to the US for honest work are not the problem. People who come to the US to live off of the government are the problem. People who come to the US (or who run for public office) explicitly to destroy the American way of life (through murder, but also through more subtle means that are effective in the long term) are the biggest problem.

4. The Probability Broach and The American Zone explicitly state that terrorism—tactically, mass murder attempted by implements/energies/timelines that cannot be countered by individual self defense—is the biggest problem confronting anarchocapitalist societies based on the concept of the Zero Aggression Principle.

5. The Framer’s observation that the government can always find something for the people to fear in order to assert more power does NOT mean that such fears are always or intrinsically groundless.

6. The objective for Libertarians—both anarchocapitalists and minarchists—is to ensure that the protection of the general public from foreign statists and terrorists is accomplished without costing the law-abiding public their rights and freedoms, and that the government becomes no larger than necessary to accomplish that task. That is, to ensure that the government completes it mission of protecting the public without giving sway to the statists and/or potential tyrants it attracts.

7. Given that neither the present Democrat or Republican party as an entity (there are a few individual Republican exceptions; no Democrat exceptions of note) seems inclined to even acknowledge the objective at point 6, the sole recourse is to vote against the candidate who appears most likely to compromise the freedoms of the people if elected. In November, there is no question that person was Mrs. Clinton, and no question that she was best defeated by voting for Mr. Trump. The behavior of her disappointed sycophants since that landmark only reinforces the wisdom of this action.

My other feelings and opinions follow logically from the above assertions. One can only hope (and work for the day) that future elections will offer electable choices more in keeping with the objective at point 6.

Respectfully

TJ Mason
tjmason@oneamericanvoice.me


Twitter: @OneAmericanVoice

To which L. Neil Smith replied:

I hope Ken prints this. [I did!—Editor] T,J., trusting government to protect you from terrorism is like trusting a killer whale to protect you from sharks. Your Point 6. is well-taken, buy never has happened. I like the Wall. a wall has no politics, It’s just a speed-bump.

L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

To which TJ Mason replied:

I don’t disagree with your point on trusting government, though to the extent we’re successful with Objective 6, the analogy will hopefully become less… er, biting.

The only way to stop a terrorist attack, once launched, is an armed populace, trained and on guard. However, attacks with explosives (or worse, chemical/biological/nuclear) happen without warning and generally kill the attacker as quickly as they kill anyone who might respond.

One can also argue that assembling such materials signals "not joking" as much as starting to clear leather in an attack with a small arm, insofar as release to respond under the ZAP is concerned. Certainly leaving home carrying such materials assembled is a provocation. Unfortunately, once the terrorist has reached that point, only good luck—in context, usually meaning poor planning/preparation on their part—can prevent a disaster.

The armed private citizen acting impulsively to stop such an event? The hand wringing Ed and Win engaged in while investigating Hamilton House is a good reminder of the potential dangers. Not to mention the risk of prematurely triggering the event. I would not consider that better or worse than the "authorities" acting to stop the event—but it will take a lot of education, and reminders of historical truths that the progressive educators have largely been suppressing for three generations, before that could be said generally of the population of a whole. (Not to mention the reaction of those authorities who are outraged that someone stole their intended heroism, although at least the US still has a long history and tradition of making sure such reactions are generally treated as the bureaucratic malarkey that they are/foment.)

TJ Mason tjmason@oneamericanvoice.me
tjmason@oneamericanvoice.me
Twitter: @OneAmericanVoice


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type
Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Back to the top


Letter from Thomas Knapp

Re: “Driving Away the Vultures” by L. Neil Smith

Five things:

1) The part of the US Constitution authorizing the federal government to regulate immigration:

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

2) The part of the US Constitution forbidding the federal government to regulate immigration:

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
—Article I, Section 9

3) The part of the US Constitution forbidding amending the Constitution to create a power of the federal government to regulate immigration prior to to 1808:

“[N]o Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article … ”
—Article V

4) The amendment to the Constitution, ratified after 1808, creating a power of the federal government to regulate immigration:

THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

5) The part of the Constitution explaining the disposition of powers not delegated by the federal government in the Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
—Amendment X

Any questions?

Thomas Knapp
kubby.communications@gmail.com


Was that worth reading?
Then why not:


payment type

Back to the top


This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased
through one of our partner or affiliate referral links. You
already know that, of course, but this is part of the FTC Disclosure
Policy found here. (Warning: this is a 2,359,896-byte 53-page PDF file!)

TLE AFFILIATE

Rational Review
Rational Review

Rational Review News Digest
Rational Review News Digest


Previous Previous          Table of Contents Contents          Next Next

Big Head Press