 |
|
|
 THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 485, September 21, 2008 "The American Empire, like all empires, is about to end."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
Re: "Letter from John Hoffman" Hi John! Your comments are preceded by a " > " [and indented -- Editor]
No. They would be anti ethanol even if Corn were not in use. The people stomping on ethanol's toes are the API and Big Oil via Foundations they own, but that is just the tip of the vile pyramid. This isn't only about Profit for Big Oil, sure they have their $5.60 a gallon Subsidy to protect, but there are players here that are bigger than Big Oil. It's about CONTROL. You, Me, Everyone. Kissinger's Arms for Oil trade, along with control of Drugs world wide effects Bank transactions. Cash flow. The FRB Dollar is used for world wide trade in Oil, and that enables control of peoples and countries all over Planet AlGore through IMF and other organized Banditry. This is why we are after Iran. Iran started an Oil Bourse that threatens the Dollar Trade in Oil. The real "Nuclear" worry is a World Wide Dollar meltdown. This is not trivial. A Military Industrial University Congressional Complex 10x to 15x Larger than necessary. It's why we are today in a State of Martial Law via C.O.G. since 9-11 and "Impeachment is Off The Table" It's why Democrats are castrated. This World Empire that supports the vermin in DC keeping them in whiskey, women, and coke is hanging by a thread. Were the nations of the world to bail on the Dollar it would be over for their vile game. The above paradigms would vanish if we were energy independent. It's all happened before. It used to be called the Tea-Silver-Opium Trade when the Brits were doing it. They went broke, due to their arrogance that lead to "account over drawn" We will end up there too.
I agree with You. Part of the farmer's problem is they are so narrow in their setups that the only buyer for their products in many states are a grain elevator down the road. This means they grow Soy, corn, wheat, etc. Growing fodder beets require that farmers stretch their thinking and wallets. Farmers options with what is in hand at present is constrained. The Elevators aren't going to buy fodder beets. A farmer who would setup next to a dairy or feed lot is probably the first place we will see some change. Cane Sorghum is an alternative that is generating interest among corn farmers as it yields more ethanol per acre and on much less fertilizer and pesticide input.
Nope. Not since 1988. Any fuel injected spark engine in an auto made after 88 can handle ethanol from 5% to 50%, the seals are compatible. Methanol is hard to contain. Ethanol has not been a problem in My experience. Problems arise from going straight over to ethanol without a slow transition. I walk the walk. see this link provided in the article. I will add, Brazil has been selling 192 proof ethanol for over 20 years now and the 4 percent water left in has not caused a single problem. Taxi's with a half million+ miles have been torn down and one can still see components "in spec" Without the excess carbon to cause wear, engines are lasting 2x to 3x longer on ethanol, the original ICE fuel.
You have stepped on a cow pie in the pasture of misinfo. Carb crops out produce oil crops hands-down. Even Jatropha (the new trendy word among latte drinkers for the lowly castor bean) produces 2/7 as much oil per acre as ethanol from corn. If one were to sprout the castor bean, then process and ferment it You would double the volume of it as a fuel as ethanol. Bio diesel is an alternative for about 2% of the fuel we need, using used fryer oil, etc. If people ever realize soy and canola oil is a joke for human health, more crop land will shift to other more productive crops for fuel, ethanol beats oil crops hands down, except for palm oil in the equatorial regions. Palms can grow along brackish water in places where no traditional crop can grow. Palm oil is here to stay. Ethanol could provide all our energy needs, and is bio degradable in every environment, land, river, and ocean. If algae is ever perfected, we may end up with bio diesel providing lots of fuel, but there is still the advantage of ethanol engines being 43 and 46 percent thermal efficient in the latest designs made by VW and Mercedes. The very best diesels are at best 35 percent thermal efficient. The cars most of us drive are about 15 to 20 percent thermal efficient. I drive a 25 year old Isuzu diesel that gets 31 mpg in-town between fill ups in my service business. Plus the 92 Subaru that is burning 66 to 70% ethanol I share with my son.
Macro farming is a creature of the State, If Corporations want to take responsibility for their actions, I am sure they will figure out ways to handle large amounts of manure. Many new distillation plants with connected feedlot are using "wet" distillation by products directly at the feed trough, they also process manure through a methane digester and use the methane to run the ethanol distillation process. What comes out of the methane digester is friendly to the soil and crops. Basically a tea of manure's nutrients without the nasty odors and bad bugs. It's all in "Alcohol Can Be a Gas" by David Blume which a Librarian can obtain if You ask. Or buy a copy here. All the Best, Robert Jackman
Spanglish semantics There are two Spanish phrases that translate as "the people" into English. One is la gente meaning an aggregate of individuals pursuing their own interests. The other is el pueblo meaning the community as a whole, the people speaking as one. Nosotros el pueblo... is the correct way to translate "We the people..." However " The right of the people..." should always be translated El derecho de la gente... when translating the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. If you will excuse me a little spanglish, it is important to make sure that the pueblo exists to protect the rights of the gente, and that the leaders of the pueblo be stripped of the power to sacrifice the rights of the gente to expand their power. We must be especially careful that they never successfully claim the authority (moral right to exercise power) to protect the pueblo by sacrificing the rights of the gente in the United States. Individuals have the right to choose to sacrifice themselves for their group, and this is frequently considered virtuous. However history seems to indicate that when rulers usurp the power of choosing who of the gente will sacrifice themselves for the pueblo they inevitably abuse it. We are all part of both the gente and the pueblo, this is a consequence of being free beings who belong to a species of social animals. No one has the right to strip you of either part of you being part of the people. Balancing individualism and group identity is something each of us must do for himself, and it is tyranny when politicians try to force you to sacrifice one for the other. A.X. Perez
Gentlemen! (or not, put the guns away) It's official I have been Officially recognized by the US Gummint as a "potential" threat to the security of the Homeland by participating in, or showing sympathy for "Dissident Fringe" groups. So skip the "Shotgun Wedding" moniker and put my name on there. I have a long time acquaintance that owes me. He works for the FBI. He sent me the notes from my TSA/NTSA background investigation. The list includes Declared membership in the libertarian party, support for your pals at the JPFO, Frequent letters to the editor of several "fringe group" news letters (?!), and "open verbalization or declaration of hate or distrust for the USG and it's policies." It goes on to say that I am also a potential danger because of my lifelong interest in and knowledge of all things that go bang. I have also been Identified as one of the founding members of a militia group? This is news to me. I used to get together and shoot with some guys the first Saturday of each month. Half of those guys are dead or too sick to threaten anyone. Myself included. Words are far more powerful than guns, Ideas are far more dangerous than.... You finish it, I need to go back to bed. Fuck these guys, I'm not giving them the satisfaction by hiding out behind Aliases. Dave Earnest
Fifty to the Box Some humble thoughts on a box of cartridges. First, I am of the opinion that we should go back to a commodity monetary system. Currently the only thing backing the American dollar is the word of Congress (Visions of Sioux, Cheyenne, Nez Perce, and others rolling on the ground with laughter at the concept of trusting Congress). However too many people believe there is not enough gold and other minerals available to back enough currency to support the current world economy, and trust is important in monetary systems. If people don't trust it it isn't money. Besides, I want to recognize that wealth is created by human endeavor. I considered RAM chips and AA batteries, but the technology of these items is still in flux. Therefor I recommend backing the dollar with pistol cartridges. I suggest that we set the value of the American dollar at ten dollars to a box of fifty 9mm Luger cartridges weighing 124 grains loaded to 1225 fps or a box of fifty .45 ACP cartridges weighing 230 grains loaded to 860 fps (hollow point or full metal jacket are equally acceptable). An exchange rate for other calibers such as .40 liberty can be developed. This probably is impractical. At the very least it needs a lot of work to bring to perfection. Still, it beats the hell out of trusting Congress. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if this is roughly the value a box of standard pistol ammo in a post collapse barter economy. Second, Let us consider how much tax we pay on a box of cartridges. For example, let us start with a box of shells costing $11.10. Please keep in mind that there is an eleven percent federal excise tax on ammo. We're back to a box of cartridges costing $ 10.00. But wait, there's more. In my home town there is a sales tax of 8.25% on most everything except groceries and medicine. This tax includes the increase in price created by excise tax. Call it an extra ninety-one cents more or less. A ten dollar box of cartridges cost you twelve bucks and change, raising the price about 16%. Ginzu Knife time. The ten dollars the box of shells is selling for has to pay a prorata of the following taxes:
I have left out taxes that are not added directly to the price of the box of ammo in question. These include personal income tax and contribution by employees to FICA, personal income tax and FICA paid by stockholders and store owners (if sole proprietors) as quarterly taxes, taxes paid by the shipping company and other vendors. I do not assign a specific value to these because all but the possible import tax are prorated depending on number of boxes sold. I won't say that minus taxes you could buy two boxes of shell for twelve bucks, but I will bet money that two boxes of ammo would cost less than $15.00. Here's to affordable ammunition and stable currency. A.X. Perez
Dear Editor: In response to the letter by Paul Bonneau: He gives the example of a 'free town' in which a set of ordinances are established, by popular vote, including one forbidding orgies on your own front lawn. This is not a 'free town'. In a free society, people do not get to dictate, either as individuals, or as a group, what other people may do with their own property. If it is my front lawn, you don't get to 'vote' that I can't hold an orgy (or any other event which is not actually hurting you) on it. Once you hold a vote to tell me what I can and can't do on my own property (assuming it is not actually harming you or your property), you have initiated force against me; you no longer have a free society, you have a tyranny of some flavor or the other. Furthermore, his statement that a 'unanimous vote' would be required to alter this, pretty much justifies the permanent enslavement of any or all human beings for all time. Consider the situation that would exist today if it had required a UNANIMOUS vote of all white males, in order to give equal rights to blacks or women. I doubt it would be possible to ever get such a unanimous vote, which means that under the system Mr. Bonneau proposes, blacks would still be slaves, and I would not have the right to vote. However, it is possible that there COULD be a place to reside, which is a valid subset of a free society, in which orgies were NOT, in fact, permitted. However, this would not be a town, in the usual sense in which we think of the word. One possibility that comes to mind is some form of gated community, owned by a wealthy individual or corporation, which dictates arbitrary rules to those whom it allows to lease property there (you cannot actually own the property there, if you did, you could not be bound by arbitrary rules set by others.) Strictly speaking, however, if we are to follow Mr. Bonneau's statement that this constitutes true freedom of association, anyone moving into such a community would have to voluntarily be sterilized, since any children born there have NOT consented to the anti-orgy contract with the company that owns such a place. Failing that, you end up with the same fallacy that governments have spent thousands of years brainwashing their subject populations into, which is that children are somehow bound to obligations to that government by happening to be born in a particular geographical area. This is not true of a free contract. I might, for instance, sign a contract with a trucking company agreeing never to drink alcohol. However, my decision to do so cannot, in a free society, bind my children to such a thing. I am also in a puzzlement about Mr Bonneau's closing statement: Freedom does not mean extreme license, uniformly applied. Even conservative people, and people who believe in God, can find a place that suits them in a free country. It's not "playing the God card" that such a place could be available to them. Yes, very few people would be willing to live in a state of extreme license, uniformly applied, but many, maybe even most (I think) could be comfortable in a state of true freedom -- after they got over the initial "fear of the unknown". Just like Win Bear did. I am not sure what he means by 'extreme license'. He seems to be applying this term to one single facet of human behavior, namely, sexual behavior, which he apparently happens to personally dislike. But there is probably NO human behavior which someone, somewhere, does not dislike. There is no reason why the term 'extreme license' should be interpreted to apply only to freedom of sexual behavior, and not, say, freedom of the right to eat what and how you wish, freedom of the right to own guns or freedom of the right to educate your children how you choose. A free society is, by definition, one which permits, so long as no-one is being harmed, 'extreme license' in ALL areas of human behavior, even those which some people personally dislike. Regarding his statement about 'people who believe in God', this is also quite subjective. Which God, Mr. Bonneau? The art of Hindus, before England took over India, was, quite frankly, pornographic. Hindus do, in fact, worship something called the 'Shiv Ling', which is basically the penis of the God Shiva. I myself have reason to believe that my own patron deity is Arawn (the Celtic deity of death). There is no way (at least at this point in time) of either proving or disproving the existence of your God, my God, or the Hindu Gods. Your personal religious beliefs may (or may not) make a good basis for arranging your own life, and engaging in intellectually stimulating arguments on the internet, but they make a very POOR basis for organizing a free society. That is not to say that there have not been in the past, or won't be in the future, societies based on religious beliefs, but please at least be honest enough to call such societies by their proper name: 'theocracies', not 'free societies'. Ann Morgan
Casual Carry I commonly wear a crucifix under my shirt. Sometimes it's visible, sometimes it isn't. I don't really worry about it nor should I have to worry about it. I don't have to worry that people that insist on publicly proclaiming my faith will have me arrested for forgetting to wear my cross or keeping it under my shirt. Neither do I have to worry about people who aren't happy with Christianity or who oppose wearing sacramentals in public having me locked up for admitting my faith (weak as it is). You can carry a knife with a pocket clip here in Texas without having to explain that I am not brandishing (As people have to worry about in NYC I've been told.). On the other hand no one insists that knives be visible, and my second big knife doesn't have a clip or belt pouch. Texas is getting ready to debate legalizing open carry of handguns this upcoming legislative session. The boys in Austin might even decide to adopt Vermont carry. It would be convenient to legally carry a pistol without worrying about whether your jacket covered it inadvertently or flopped open and unintentionally revealed you were armed. Let's call this casual carry, no big fuss as long as you are not openly looking for trouble. That is what the right to keep and gear arms should be understood to guarantee. Religious symbols, cutlery, or guns. A person who is going about his honest business should be free to carry these items on his person without a hassle or being accused of hassling others unless he deliberately picks trouble. Let's see if the Texas State Legislature agrees this season. A.X. Perez
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and affiliates. We cheerfully accept donations!
|
|
|
|
Contents
Next
