 |
|
|
L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 330, July 31, 2005 "For THIS we survived Auschwitz?"
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
The "Magic Bomb" Theory Please link through to this in the next TLE, would you? http://www.faulkingtruth.com/Articles/Commentary/1040.html L. Neil Smith
Dear Mister Ed, In Jack Duggan's "How To End Jihad Without Really Trying" http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle329-20050724-03.html He says some remarkable things—What I took away from it could be summarized thusly: "The Draft is Bad." "Abortion is bad." "Homosexuality is bad." "Modern Pop Culture is bad, perhaps Satanist." "Diversity is bad." "Black Jack Pershing was good because he was extremely brutal." (Note, no sign of whether the "terrorists" he had slaughtered and defiled were *actually found guilty* of anything before being killed.) "So we should [bomb? nuke?] Mecca." I started out liking what Duggan had to say re—the 13th Amendment and the elites versus the rest of us—But then Duggan proceeds to "swallow the kool-aid" of the idiotic "good guys versus bad guys" mentality of the neo-con war propaganda. How about this for a way to End the Jihad: A) Every American every where can carry any weapon they want at any time, no permission needed (Even an Eskimo lesbian doctor who performs abortions in San Francisco). B) Leave everyone else on the planet alone to mind their own business. I guarantee in 20 years, the jihad against America would be as dim a memory as Clay Aikin. As for the idiotic "Culture War" meme that underlies most of the 3-card Monty game of power in this country—the Libertarian answer is simple. If you want a community with conservative Christian values (no "Diversity", gay people or abortions) then go build one and leave everyone else alone. In time the facts will tell us which one works the best. Ah, but then the Christian Right and the Progressive Left wouldn't have any fear to market to drive their political agendas. Take the red pill. Jay P Hailey
Re: "Letter from Pamela Maltzman"
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle329-20050724-01.html#letter1
> Re: "A New Libertarian Paradigm For Making Montana Free; A Libertarian
B-A-R-F? Perhaps, Be-Armed-Ready- and—Fertile?
> My slightly longer answer is this: You've GOTTA be kidding. We're totally serious as we don't wish libertarians to be the 21st Century's version
of the 19th Century's Dodo Bird or Sheep-Eaters.
> Just when I was beginning to think that there were at least a few men out
The article was about generating children and not about sex. Indeed, the piece stressed the importance of adopting children for those unwilling or unable to conceive enough libertarians. BTW, Mormon women in greater Zion have a higher percentage of college degrees than the national average. You also seem to take an old-fashion (circa 1950's) viewpoint that women
are primarily responsible for child rearing. With libertarians that I know, the
raising of children is an equally shared blessing.
> Now, while I personally was only lukewarm about the idea of reproducing, I
Again, child rearing is a dual responsibity (if married or living with a partner) and not just a female gig. Having many children is not a curse or even a burden to most pronatal groups. Ask any Mormon family in Utah if they think they're sad about having beautiful children around to help out and rapidly expanding their value system. The average white female in America has a life expectancy of 80 years and
a useful (desirable) "breeding" range between the age of 20 and 40/45. Thus,
a woman's "breeding" years compose only about 25% of life-expectancy. Again,
if this to too great of a burden, the family or single female should consider the
adoption option.
> Besides, as everyone knows, there is no guarantee that children will share
I used the Mormon model because they are the biggest winners in the cultural and ideology wars in the real West. I could have used the Hutterites who now have the highest birthrates in the West and the nation. Their birthrate remains high as they have not yet won the ideology/philosophy debate in Montana as the Mormon's have done in greater Zion (so they can now afford to lower their birthrate). I must admit, that I have never before heard that having many children "is...not even libertarian..."and I can't seem to locate the source of that belief (it certainly wasn't Thomas Jefferson...at least six children). No one is mandating that libertarians have numerous children. It is only a suggestion, kind of like signing on to the ZAP principle, that may prevent the extinction or at least the increasing irrelevancy of libertarians and our ideas. Another great thing about the LDS is that they collect data on everything related to
themselves (the winners). The Saints estimate that 91% of children remain Mormon
until they die. That's also a nice percentage for libertarians to emulate. However, even
that positive LDS statistic underestimates the Mormon impact. I've known many ex or
Jack-Mormons that totally trashed Mormons and everything about the Saints. At least
15% of Idaho's IDLP, including the late "libertarian" Larry Fulmer (the father of the LP in
Idaho) are Jack-Mormons. However, all ex-Mormons I know still demonstrate many traditional
LDS values. I'm sure that most libertarian children, of the few that may stray into non-liberty
ideas, will still carry many strongly libertarian values and traits.
> Further, even if you could convince every last semi-libertarian-minded woman
I really don't think that libertarians are less industrious or poorer than Mormons, Hutterites, or Hmongs (the three greatest procreationist cultures in Montana). Libertarian men will have to change with the times and need, or else end up as a footnote in an anthropological journal of failed societies, just like the extinct Sheep-Eaters. Part of the problem is urbanization and the East, for people there usually have few
or no children (except Orthodox Jews). In rural Montana, working on a ranch or farm
(at least part-time), children are necessary to have a successful operation. Indeed,
rancher/farmers that don't have many children, often go broke in paying hired-hands.
The paradigm proposed assumes that libertarians will move to Montana (or Idaho and
Wyoming) and live in rural areas where numerous children are needed and appreciated.
> Finally, it's nobody else's business how many children I choose to have—or
Again, there's no mandate in out suggested paradigm to save libertarianism.
It was an attempt to get libertarians to think out of the box and possibly
become winners politically, culturally, and demographically.
> I seem to recall, having read Ayn Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged,
I think Galt's Gulchers lived in the real West. People live in the world that they generate, and if an individual, group or culture fails to convert others to their values and is not even generating children at a replacement level (2.1 rate...libertarian have about a 1.3 rate), they are on a one-way road to extinction, and will eventually join the ranks of past failed groups (Sheep-Eaters et al.). BTW, I'm the parent of ten children (both naturally and by adoption) that are now all adults
and libertarians. During many of my child-rearing years, I was also a single parent. I
never got rich but was never poor, and indeed libertarianism and myself are all the richer for
my efforts.
> Pamela Maltzman
I greatly appreciated your LTE. Let the debates begin! Ben Irvin
Re: "What The Hell To Do Now?", by Alan R. Weiss http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle329-20050724-08.html Dear Alan R. Weiss, I had to chuckle a bit at your challenge to Butler Shaffer re. supplying/suggesting a fix for the current mess of western civilization (The Libertarian Enterprise Number 329, July 24, 2005). He and Lew Rockwell were mildly rebuked by Paul Wakfer this past March for the same type of writing—column after column of examples of individual freedom lost through government intervention, but nothing even moderately substantive regarding possible solutions. Paul (with my editing assistance) is still at work refining the Natural Social Contract—the minimal framework for a self-ordered society operating under the principles of his Social Meta-Needs theory Kitty Antonik Wakfer
Minaret of Freedom Institute News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!!!!
MUSLIM THINK TANK HAILS FATWA AGAINST TERRORISM Washington, DC (July 28, 2005). Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, president of the Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI), a Washington, DC area Islamic policy research institute, today hailed the fatwa against terrorism and extremist violence issued by the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA). "For years we have been explaining the reasons that Islam opposes violence against civilians and bemoaning the lack of coverage of the official denunciations of such acts of violence as the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center issued by countless Muslim organizations," Dr. Ahmad stated. "We can only pray that this fatwa issued by a body of recognized scholars in the West will make it clear that Islam is opposed to terrorism," he added. Dr. Ahmad criticized both inflammatory demagogues who have asserted that Islam promotes violence and Muslim apologists whose defense of Islam as a peaceful religion has given the impression that Muslims try to pretend their religion is pacifist. "The overwhelming concern of the holy book of Islam, the Qur'an," Dr. Ahmad said, "is justice. Killing is prohibited in Islam except as punishment for murder or for terrorism (called hir�bah in Arabic). Even in a state of war, non-combatants are not to be targeted. Islam had a theory of just war before it was developed in the Western world. It is our hope that this denunciation will prevent the seduction of our youth into unIslamic responses to injustices against Muslims." The Minaret of Freedom Institute (MFI) is dedicated to research and educational efforts regarding Islamic law and Muslim history. Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
