Previous

Contents

Next

I'm going to take some heat for this....
Neale Osborn
[email protected]

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

After a series of e-mails between myself and a good friend, L. Neil Smith (Libertarian, author of "Down With Power" (Non- Fiction), "The Probability Broach", "Pallas", "Ceres", and many other novels), I have come to the conclusion that sometimes I'm just not as Libertarian as some think I should be. Here's the opening salvo-

Subject: Talking Back to Radio
>
> A measure has been introduced in the Colorado state legislature to
> require drug testing for welfare recipients. Conservatives are all for
> it, of course, and Democrats oppose it for all the wrong reasons.
>
> Denver talk show host Peter Boyles, who has demonstrated on previous
> occasions that he can't think his way out of a wet paper bag, is
> bullying callers who oppose this measure, using the fact that the cops
> can stop you on the highway and test you (which he acknowledges is
> unconstitutional, but so what?) as a precedent.
>
> I wrote him the following note, which, of course, he will ignore or
> ridicule. Yiou can write him at
> http://www.khow.com/pages/khow-feedback.html :
>
> I carry no brief for welfare recipients. But when you think up
> reasonable-sounding excuses—or support them enthusiastically—to
> violate one individual's sovereignty, you can be assured they will
> eventually be expanded to include yours.
>
> Remember, "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" is a "disease", defined by
> the American Psychological Association, in which the "sufferer"—who
> doesn't like the authorities or whatever they do—may eventually be
> deprived of his Second Amendment right to obtain, own, and carry weapons.
>
> Most recently, "grief" has been redefined as a psychological disorder,
> as well. If you wonder how we ended up in a police state, listen to
> what's coming out of your mouth, and look no further than the nearest
> mirror.
>
> L. Neil Smith, author
> _Down Wih Power_

To which I replied-

Neil—I understand your objections. However, if people want to suck the public trough for their existence, they have no right to privacy at all. I want them subjected to the government analprobings for cholesterol levels, drugs, alchohol and tobacco, prohibited from purchasing lottery tickets, have airtight regulation on the types of food their food stamps can purchase, hell, I want a government asshole telling them what clothes their kids can wear. I want them denied cable, internet, air conditioning, and cellular phones. I want their heating systems regulated and locked in to 65 degrees fahrenheit. I want them made so fucking miserable that they finally decide to get off their lazy asses and get to work supporting themselves and their kids.

To be honest, I ALSO like them being forced to work for their largesse—cleaning streets, raking leaves on public property, painting public housing, whatever, WHILE wearing Safety Yellow vests emblazoned with "WELFARE RECIPIENT" to let everyone know. When you suck the at the taxpayers' trough, yopu have surrendered your right to nearly ANY privacy. Because I want you OFF the Dole and back supporting yourself. No, it's not particularly Libertarian, but then again, neither is being a leech.

Remember a few years ago, when somewhere (Arizona??) decided that dwellers in public housing had to work 40 hours a MONTH on maintenance, if they were not otherwise employed or in school to better themselves and get off the dole? It was portrayed as slavery, forcing the poor little leeches to actually labor for their largesse. Totally ignoring the slaves forced to labor to pay to PROVIDE that largesse. Let me know if I'm missing something, OR if this actually triggered a change of thought in you!

Neale

Neil came back with-

Have you heard the expression "Do it to Julia"?
>
> The real thieves are the politicians and bureaucrats. Welfare recipients
> may be obnoxious, but they are just the excuse for the five- and
> six-figure bigwigs who run the system.
>
> What I'm interested in here is a principle regarding individual
> sovereignty. If we crave the satisfaction of humiliating the underclass,
> we'll soon be humiliated the same way, ourselves.
>
> We could all end up wearing blaze orange overalls with ODD printed
> on them.
>
> N.

Now, I understand and happen to be a firm supporter of individual sovereignty. I hate the thought of supporting the reduction of anyone's rights. On the other hand, every single person on the Dole, in any form, has their hands in the pocket of every taxpayer. Taking money from them, under the guise of "It's my right to these entitlements." strips me and every other taxpayer of OUR right to the monies we earn. So, the rights of people who aren't earning money supercede the rights of people EARNING that money. Well, I do not agree. And if you decide to feed at the public trough, you need to pay a steep price. What do YOU think?

Was that worth reading?
Then why not: