Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

.
  Archive Message Manager
.

August 2002

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:52:21 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

While I admire the concept of applying Libertarian values to international
interactions, I don't believe that justification of national sovereignty
needs libertarian underpinnings. (and in fact I don't agree that
Libertarianism should be applied or necessarily held to in international
relations or philosophy).
Simply the concept of sovereignty should be enough. And implicit in
sovereignty is the idea of geographical limitations, namely wherever that
sovereignty actually controls the law of the land.
The operative question is: Does the US control the law of the land in Italy?
Malaysia, Japan, Australia or whatever? Does it legislate the laws in those
countries? Does it collect taxes and tariffs on commerce there? Does it keep
the peace and militarily protect it? The obvious answer is NO! And as such
it is a simple touchstone to determine whether or not a given country has
geographical sovereign jurisdiction over a given land.
The US has NO right to invade surreptitiously another country, nor does it
have any right to exert what it feels are its laws over and into another
sovereignty.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 18:08:40 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

> While I admire the concept of applying Libertarian values to
> international interactions, I don't believe that justification of
> national sovereignty needs libertarian underpinnings. (and in fact I
> don't agree that Libertarianism should be applied or necessarily held
> to in international relations or philosophy). Simply the concept of
> sovereignty should be enough.

What's its justification? Why should a libertarian recognise it at all?
And to the extent that we do recognise it, why should it impede actions
that are we are entitled to do under the Non-Aggression Principle? You
seem to be saying that `sovereignty' (i.e. the rights of states) is
primary to libertarianism (which deals with the rights of individuals),
and does not need to be justified in terms of it. Why do you say this?
If sovereignty isn't based on libertarianism, then what is it based on?
(We may be getting at something here).

> And implicit in sovereignty is the idea of geographical limitations,
> namely wherever that sovereignty actually controls the law of the land.

But is this exclusive? Does it violate one nation's sovereignty to have
another nation prosecute offenses that occured in a piece of geography
claimed by the first nation? And if so, why should we care?

You are asserting a position which is commonly held around the world,
but which the USA has traditionally rejected. If you want the USA to
change its traditional position and accept yours, it's up to you to
justify it with arguments, not mere assertions. You are saying that
applying USAn law to acts committed in Afghanistan or Italy is wrong,
and the USA has been wrong to do it for 200 years, and should stop;
the USA figuratively asks: why? And since this is a libertarian list,
I ask the same question.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 06:30:31 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: libNW <libnw@immosys.com>

http://www.sobran.com/columns/020716.shtml

John Lindh, Patriot
July 16, 2002

by Joe Sobran

I yield to nobody in my regard for patriotism, which
is why I'm a bit troubled by the prosecution of John
Walker Lindh, the American-born Taliban fighter. Lindh
has now plea-bargained, accepting a 20-year prison
sentence for the "crime" of defending his country against
invaders. Among the charges is that he was carrying
grenades and an AK-47 (broken down) when U.S. forces
arrived in Afghanistan.

Just as I consider I have the right to defend my
country from attack, I consider that Lindh had the right
to defend his adopted country. He was no terrorist, by
any stretch of that rubber word, and he had no part in
the September 11 attacks on American soil.

Many Americans wanted nothing less than a death
sentence for Lindh. They consider him a traitor who owed
his allegiance to the United States; the press describes
him as "a 21-year-old Californian," never mind that he
left California in his teens (having been born elsewhere)
and considers himself an Afghan.

Don't we have the right to emigrate? Is this the
Soviet Union? So Lindh skipped the tedious paperwork and
inconvenience of changing his citizenship under U.S. law.
That's a technicality that doesn't affect his moral right
to leave. So why all the moral indignation?

The angry mob insists that it was treason for Lindh
to fight back against an invasion by the government he
was born under, even after he had long since renounced
it. In fact the U.S. Government considers it criminal
even for natives of other countries to resist American
invasions.

Once upon a time, when I was a Cold War
conservative, I might have been among those hoping Lindh
would get the hot seat. I thought it was my patriotic
duty to support American military action, on grounds that
it was somehow-or-other "defending freedom." I didn't
want to know the details of this defense; if innocent
people sometimes got killed, well, that was accidental,
unavoidable, unintended. We meant all for the best. We
mustn't "handcuff" the brave men who were fighting for
our liberty against the evil forces in this world.

When liberals talked of "bloated military budgets,"
I retorted that too much defense was better than too
little, which might be fatal. In short, I was willing to
give the military a blank check. Not that this stopped me
from complaining about high taxes. I blamed those on the
welfare state.

Liberals tend to do the same thing from another
point of view. They support the welfare state without
looking too closely at the details. Waste? Fraud? Excess?
Small prices to pay for "compassionate" government. They
blame high taxes on the military.

Both sides, liberal and conservative, loyally
support a limitless government as long as they feel that
the government has its heart in the right place and is an
instrument of the principles they believe in. The details
hardly matter. And each side grudgingly accepts the
package deal of a mammoth state that does what they
disapprove of, as long as it also does things they
approve of. Liberals accept militarism as the politically
necessary cost of socialism; conservatives accept
socialist programs as the politically necessary cost of
militarism. It's a very expensive symbiosis.

Today the militarists have the upper hand. September
11 decided that. The great majority of patriotic
Americans are willing to let the government do what it
thinks it must militarily, including curtailing freedoms
at home. Sometimes you have to abridge freedom in order
to preserve it, don't you?

We have heard this argument since Lincoln's
presidency. And it still works. The U.S. Government has
grown incomprehensibly vast because it's so much easier
to wave the flag than to read the Constitution. We have
hypnotized ourselves into a state of mind that believes
that when our government is rifling through Granny's
suitcase or prosecuting an eccentric kid, it's defending
our freedom.

These hypnotic slogans recall the words of William
Blake: "To generalize is to be an idiot." Who needs facts
when you have such compelling generalizations to keep the
herd in line?

John Walker Lindh has learned the perils of living
outside the herd. He went his own way, even if it was
only to join a different herd in which his individuality
was submerged.

His original herd still claims his soul. It doesn't
mind that he renounced Jesus Christ, his Savior -- but to
renounce his government! Now that's a mortal sin.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read this column on-line at
"http://www.sobran.com/columns/020716.shtml".

Copyright (c) 2002 by the Griffin Internet
Syndicate, www.griffnews.com. This column may not
be published in print or Internet publications
without express permission of Griffin Internet
Syndicate. You may forward it to interested
individuals if you use this entire page,
including the following disclaimer:

"SOBRAN'S and Joe Sobran's columns are available
by subscription. For details and samples, see
http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml, write
fran@griffnews.com, or call 800-513-5053."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:56:19 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Joe Sobran wrote:

> Just as I consider I have the right to defend my country from attack,
> I consider that Lindh had the right to defend his adopted country.

Even stipulating Sobran's premise, how does fighting for the Taliban
insurrection equal defending Afghanistan? If Lindh wasn't committing
treason against the USA, then he must have been committing treason
against Afghanistan, no?

> He was no terrorist, by any stretch of that rubber word

As far as USAn law is concerned, the Taliban are duly listed as a
foreign terrorist organisation, and in his plea, Lindh admitted to
being aware of that when he provided them with his services.

> Don't we have the right to emigrate? Is this the Soviet Union? So
> Lindh skipped the tedious paperwork and inconvenience of changing
> his citizenship under U.S. law. That's a technicality that doesn't
> affect his moral right to leave.

Citizenship is more than a convenience; he was free to renounce his
USAn citizenship, with all its duties and privileges, but seems to
have chosen not to do so. Sobran claims that this was a mere oversight;
how does he know that? I'm sure that he never intended to give up his
right to nter the USA whenever he wanted, or his right (had circumstances
been different) to help from US consuls should he ever end up in trouble
somewhere overseas. He was certainly not slow to claim his rights as a
US citizen to a trial and the protection of the constitution. Well, a
US citizen who takes up arms against the USA, and adheres to its enemies,
giving them aid and comfort, is a traitor.

According to Sobran, who could ever be charged with treason? Surely
Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw Haw merely forgot to file the paperwork to
become Japanese and German citizens.

> The angry mob insists that it was treason for Lindh to fight back
> against an invasion by the government he was born under, even after
> he had long since renounced it.

When did he renounce it? Sobran just admitted that he never did, but
considers that a mere technicality. Well, technicalities are the meat
and potatoes of the law; how could it be otherwise?

> In fact the U.S. Government considers it criminal even for natives of
> other countries to resist American invasions[...] The U.S. Government
> has grown incomprehensibly vast because it's so much easier to wave
> the flag than to read the Constitution.

Perhaps Sobran should take some time off from his ranting to read the
constitution himself; he'll discover that in the course of limiting the
scope of the crime of treason it specifically defines it; and it doesn't
say that the traitor must be a citizen (making the whole preceding
discourse at least partly irrelevant).

> When liberals talked of "bloated military budgets," I retorted that
> too much defense was better than too little, which might be fatal[...]
> Liberals tend to do the same thing from another point of view. They
> support the welfare state without looking too closely at the details[...]
> Both sides, liberal and conservative, loyally support a limitless
> government as long as they feel that the government has its heart in
> the right place and is an instrument of the principles they believe in.

So now the defense of the country is on the same plane as the welfare
state. Sobran knows better than this; he knows, but pretends not to,
that defense is the sole justification for a state's existence in the
first place. If a govt does not defend its people, with as much force
and expenditure of resources as that takes, then it has no business
doing anything else whatsoever. And too much defense is indeed a whole
lot better than too little; it's the govt's *duty* to err on the side
of caution, i.e. on the side of too much defense. (It's also its duty
not to wear that defense thin by expending its resources in adventures
that have nothing to do with defending its people and their legitimate
interests. It's hard to see how Clinton's Balkan adventures were in
the interests of the USA.)

Welfare, on the other hand, is *at best* something that govt can do
after it has taken care of its obligations. Once it has seen to the
defense of the realm, it *may* try to achieve other things, such as the
relief of poverty, the promotion of the arts, or whatever other damnfool
project appeals to its constituency. It then becomes a matter of
legitimate debate whether to do such things, and if so how much to spend
on them. (Remember, I'm talking here of govts in general, not just the
US Federal govt, so the USAn constitutional is irrelevant. I'm also not
talking specifically from a libertarian POV, since Sobran isn't coming
from there; libertarians see the core functions of govt as also being
its sole functions, so we would oppose all such projects, but it is
legit for other political philosophies to see such extra govt activities
as desirable, provided only that they don't interfere with the core
functions. My only point here is to distinguish the core functions,
particularly defense, from such `extra' activities.)

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:30:33 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to Joe Sobran...

Joe Sobran wrote:
> > Just as I consider I have the right to defend my country from attack,
> > I consider that Lindh had the right to defend his adopted country.

You replied:
> Even stipulating Sobran's premise, how does fighting for the Taliban
> insurrection equal defending Afghanistan? If Lindh wasn't committing
> treason against the USA, then he must have been committing treason
> against Afghanistan, no?

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Obviously, the
Taliban WAS the Afghan government until the US brought the reign of
military superiority into the equation and toppled that government.
You obviously are speaking of post 9/11 events in which the US
government toppled the Afghan government and replaced it with one more
of its liking. Lindh was serving a legitimate government until the US
arrived with our usual arrogance and massive military power, as we've
been doing now for several decades across the globe!

To make my only point here, is that the government of Afghanistan
(prior to 9/11) was the Taliban government, Lindh cold hardly be
accused of treason against Afghanistan. That would be, as I
understand it anyway, the post 9/11 Afghan government, that is, the
proxy government instituted by force by the US government, with the
aid of Britain and others.

Your use of terms, e.g.: Taliban Insurrection, is also questionable.
Lets face it, the Taliban WAS the Afghan government for better of
worse. I'm not defending it by any stretch, but your use of the term
"insurrection" is inappropriate in my judgement, since it was fighting
mainly a foreign hostile aggressive force, namely, the U.S.
government. I would have been far more sympathetic to your
descriptions here, if the US government had declared war against
Afghanistan. We did NOT! We still haven't.

It's pretty obvious in fact that the current Afghan puppet regime
couldn't exist in its own right except for overt force being applied
by the US government! Think about it. Karzie fires his own security
force and asks the US go defend him! Doesn't sound much like
democracy to me. Sounds more like Vietnam under Diem when he was
hounded the US, the CIA, and NSA to legitimize his grip on power.
That was a giant failure as history reveals.

Anyway, this is mousemilking rhetoric. Point is, the US has no moral
authority or moral right to change any government on the face of the
earth. The current government in Afghanistan today is a direct
product of US imperialistic aggression pure and simple. That
government has no will of the Afghan people, and as such, is immoral
and illegitimate.

You are missing an all important fact. John Lindh was a patriot to
his cause, and the entire islamic world knows that full well. He left
his own country, and he dedicated his own life to a "higher" cause of
his own choosing. He, therefore, cannot be considered a traitor, but
a patriot to the millions of Islamic around the planet that will
consider his actions as a quest for "justice". He'll end up as a
martyr no doubt.

What goes around, comes around. Decades of failed US foreign policy
will come home in spades at some point, and I believe it is already
happening. It happened on September 11, 2001. It won't go away
either. The US government is already isolated in the way we
arrogantly treat prisoners, withdrawing common everyday rules of law
under the US Constitution, violating the Geneva Conventions.

Americans are also losing our most basic civil liberties, and all in
the name of fighting "the war on terror". It's like every other
f**king war against liberty that the US government has been engaged in
for the last several decades! But this has global implications, and
the rest of the globe has already written us off, including our
military power against Iraq, and all the rest of the so-called
arrogance, pomp and superiority we claim to have. This will all
become a thing of the past, in the not to distant future. We are a
declining civilization, and one of our own making. We don't believe
in liberty. We don't believe in personal choice. We believe in
military might and power to achieve dictatorial objectives.

It won't work. It hasn't worked. What we have today is exactly a
product of our own arrogance.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 08:54:53 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>Anyway, this is mousemilking rhetoric. Point is, the US has no
>moral authority or moral right to change any government on the face
>of the earth. The current government in Afghanistan today is a
>direct product of US imperialistic aggression pure and simple. That
>government has no will of the Afghan people, and as such, is immoral
>and illegitimate.

How do you determine "will of the Afghan people"? I'm sure it reflects the
will of SOME Afghan people. And what has any of that to do with morality or
legitimacy?

My judgement of morality and legitimacy is based on what people DO, not on
the basis of WHO SAYS SO.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: re: jury reform
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002 19:51:58 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Jeff Doty:

>Are you serious about this reform? Or is it your plan to just use
>it as a campaign issue with the hope that it will resonate with a
>large portion of voters?

Some of both.

>If the former, I have serious doubts that it would be an
>improvement wrt justice. Wouldn't you lose a lot of the nuances of
>a trial? For example, how the defendant is acting during the trial,
>etc. Would the camera be on the person being questioned? Or on the
>questioner? The defendant? If you use multiple cameras, who would
>be in charge of editing?

With split screen close-up of simultaneous reactions, if those are
even desirable, you'd have a better view than live. Editing would
be a matter of official record, just as with trial records now. If
the judge ordered something stricken from the record, that's how
it'd be on the video too.

>If a juror falls asleep during viewing, who's going to wake him up?

Jurors would pay as much or as little attention as they wanted,
just as now. However, because it'd be much more convenient for them,
they'd have more incentive to pay attention. When all the jurors
have to hear the case at the same time, chances are good it's going
to be a bad day for some of those jurors. A bad or perverse mood a
juror is in could be consequential. But if the jurors have a week
to view the record at home, they can pick good times to do it.

>This would be an interesting study in psychology, but if put into
>place, I would be fearful that a judge would have the video edited
>in such a way that it would lead the jury to make the conclusion
>that the judge wanted.

Judges right now can exclude things from the jury and declare
mistrials if the jury hears something they weren't supposed to. If
judges are going to have such power, at least let it not cancel a
trial in progress.

>If you included multiple cameras, the final
>result could be so confusing that a juror might say to hell with
>whole thing and just send in a verdict without viewing the entire
>video.

Some might. But others would find it less confusing than having to
follow the events live.

>OTOH, if you just want to use it as a campaign issue, I suppose it
>might resonate with voters who are fearful of getting that notice
>in the mail that they have been selected for jury duty. But
>wouldn't it be better to try to determine what issue is important
>in the VOTER'S life instead of what's happening in YOUR life?

Because it affects all citizens, I think it would be a grabber for
most voters. And it'd give me a unique selling proposition,
because nobody else is making this an issue.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jury reform
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 04:18:03 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Hi Robert,

have you been impaneled, yet? bet you don't get to be, or be forced to be -
depending on your opinion?

your way too smart, robert. the system selects against intelligence, has
been my experience. both times i was called, because of the nature of the
trials, i wanted to serve. nope. i sat there and watched the defense and
prosecution select against anyone who showed any evidence that they had a
brain.

the first time, though, i hung around anyway, just for the experience -
watched the whole trial. i was standing outside the courtroom when the
step-father, who had fucked his 13 year old step-daughter walked out with
his attorney and wife. "thanks for getting me off" the fucker said to his
attorney. "hey, just don't do that crap again, i might not be able to get
you off next time!!"

with my notes and recordings, i tried to have the judge in the trial (good
mormon he is) "disbarred". lots of mormon's, especially authorities, claim
the children in such cases are agents of the devil - and the judge was hell
bent on the jury finding innocence, in relation to the devil. the judge got
censored, bigtime, given my complaint to the judicial council.
unfortunately, he's still serving.

oops, got interupted, now i gotta to go bed.

there are lots of problems with juries, robert, i figure you know that.

i prefer common law judges.

anyway, sleep time.

larry


on 8/1/02 5:51 PM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> Jeff Doty:
>
>> Are you serious about this reform? Or is it your plan to just use
>> it as a campaign issue with the hope that it will resonate with a
>> large portion of voters?
>
> Some of both.
>
>
>> If the former, I have serious doubts that it would be an
>> improvement wrt justice. Wouldn't you lose a lot of the nuances of
>> a trial? For example, how the defendant is acting during the trial,
>> etc. Would the camera be on the person being questioned? Or on the
>> questioner? The defendant? If you use multiple cameras, who would
>> be in charge of editing?
>
> With split screen close-up of simultaneous reactions, if those are
> even desirable, you'd have a better view than live. Editing would
> be a matter of official record, just as with trial records now. If
> the judge ordered something stricken from the record, that's how
> it'd be on the video too.
>
>> If a juror falls asleep during viewing, who's going to wake him up?
>
> Jurors would pay as much or as little attention as they wanted,
> just as now. However, because it'd be much more convenient for them,
> they'd have more incentive to pay attention. When all the jurors
> have to hear the case at the same time, chances are good it's going
> to be a bad day for some of those jurors. A bad or perverse mood a
> juror is in could be consequential. But if the jurors have a week
> to view the record at home, they can pick good times to do it.
>
>> This would be an interesting study in psychology, but if put into
>> place, I would be fearful that a judge would have the video edited
>> in such a way that it would lead the jury to make the conclusion
>> that the judge wanted.
>
> Judges right now can exclude things from the jury and declare
> mistrials if the jury hears something they weren't supposed to. If
> judges are going to have such power, at least let it not cancel a
> trial in progress.
>
>> If you included multiple cameras, the final
>> result could be so confusing that a juror might say to hell with
>> whole thing and just send in a verdict without viewing the entire
>> video.
>
> Some might. But others would find it less confusing than having to
> follow the events live.
>
>> OTOH, if you just want to use it as a campaign issue, I suppose it
>> might resonate with voters who are fearful of getting that notice
>> in the mail that they have been selected for jury duty. But
>> wouldn't it be better to try to determine what issue is important
>> in the VOTER'S life instead of what's happening in YOUR life?
>
> Because it affects all citizens, I think it would be a grabber for
> most voters. And it'd give me a unique selling proposition,
> because nobody else is making this an issue.
>
> In Your Sly Tribe,
> Robert
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jury reform
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 15:40:18 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

lfullmer1@cableone.net asked:

>have you been impaneled, yet? bet you don't get to be, or be
>forced to be - depending on your opinion?

Didn't even come to that. In 2.5 days the closest I got was sitting with a
bunch ready to be impaneled in the criminal court hallway, but they settled
the case.

Sourly By Inert I,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 04:37:22 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: libNW <libnw@immosys.com>

*** Forwarded message, originally written by Jon Roland on 01-Aug-02 ***

No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case

The arrest in Italy of Russian Alimzan Tokhtakhounov for inducing, or
attempting to induce, Olympic skating judges to trade votes on
contestants, raises some troubling constitutional issues. He is charged
with "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" and "conspiracy to commit bribery
relating to sporting contests". However, the allegation is that he
committed the offenses while on the territory of Italy, which at last
report had not been admitted into the United States as a state, nor did
the Italian legislature cede exclusive legislative jurisdiction to the
U.S. Congress of the parcel of land on which he acted, as the grounds of a
U.S. diplomatic mission.

The U.S. does not have criminal jurisdiction over the entire planet, as
much as it might like to assert such extraterritorial power. The people of
Italy have exclusive dominion over the territory of their nation, and do
not elect members of the U.S. Congress to pass laws for that territory.
Only Italy has jurisdiction in this case. Extradition to the United States
and prosecution in U.S. courts on this offense is without authority and a
violation of the rights of the accused under the laws of nations.

The original understanding of criminal jurisdiction when the U.S.
Constitution was adopted was that there were only three kinds of
jurisdiction: subject (_in subjectam materiam_), territorial (_in locum_),
and personal (_in personam_). To have jurisdiction in a criminal case, a
legislature and a court must have a combination of subject jurisdiction
and either territorial or personal jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution
confers personal jurisdiction in criminal cases only over U.S. military
personnel and militia personnel in actual federal service. Territorial
jurisdiction is for the territory where an offense was committed, not
where the effects took place.

On state territory, the U.S. Congress and courts have criminal subject
jurisdiction only over cases of treason, counterfeiting, piracy and
felonies on the high seas, offenses against the laws of nations,
violations of military discipline, enslavement, deprivations of rights by
a state agent, or deprivations of the right to vote on such grounds as
race, age, gender, nonpayment of a tax, etc. They have general police
powers only over parcels ceded to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction
of Congress by a state, such as the District of Columbia, over coastal
waters, U.S. flag vessels, and the grounds of U.S. diplomatic missions
abroad.

--Jon Roland, 512/257-2606
jon.roland@constitution.org
www.constitution.org

For more on this matter see

"Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause", Jon Roland, July 29, 2002
http://www.constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm

"Rights of foreigners in the "war on terrorism", Jon Roland, November 26,
2001 http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm

Conflict of Criminal Laws, Edward S. Stimson, 1936.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/stimson/con_crim.htm

A Dissertation on the Nature and Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Courts
of the United States, Peter Stephen Du Ponceau (1824)
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/psdp/juris.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 07:03:37 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Interesting...do you (and Jon Roland) believe that Italy has jurisdiction
to prosecute this case? What crime was committed in Italy? Does this
mean I am free to commit crimes that harm people in other countries as long
as I never physically am present in those other countries?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 04:37 08/02/02 -0700, you wrote:
>*** Forwarded message, originally written by Jon Roland on 01-Aug-02 ***
>
>No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case
>
>The arrest in Italy of Russian Alimzan Tokhtakhounov for inducing, or
>attempting to induce, Olympic skating judges to trade votes on
>contestants, raises some troubling constitutional issues. He is charged
>with "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" and "conspiracy to commit bribery
>relating to sporting contests". However, the allegation is that he
>committed the offenses while on the territory of Italy, which at last
>report had not been admitted into the United States as a state, nor did
>the Italian legislature cede exclusive legislative jurisdiction to the
>U.S. Congress of the parcel of land on which he acted, as the grounds of a
>U.S. diplomatic mission.
>
>The U.S. does not have criminal jurisdiction over the entire planet, as
>much as it might like to assert such extraterritorial power. The people of
>Italy have exclusive dominion over the territory of their nation, and do
>not elect members of the U.S. Congress to pass laws for that territory.
>Only Italy has jurisdiction in this case. Extradition to the United States
>and prosecution in U.S. courts on this offense is without authority and a
>violation of the rights of the accused under the laws of nations.
>
>The original understanding of criminal jurisdiction when the U.S.
>Constitution was adopted was that there were only three kinds of
>jurisdiction: subject (_in subjectam materiam_), territorial (_in locum_),
>and personal (_in personam_). To have jurisdiction in a criminal case, a
>legislature and a court must have a combination of subject jurisdiction
>and either territorial or personal jurisdiction. The U.S. Constitution
>confers personal jurisdiction in criminal cases only over U.S. military
>personnel and militia personnel in actual federal service. Territorial
>jurisdiction is for the territory where an offense was committed, not
>where the effects took place.
>
>On state territory, the U.S. Congress and courts have criminal subject
>jurisdiction only over cases of treason, counterfeiting, piracy and
>felonies on the high seas, offenses against the laws of nations,
>violations of military discipline, enslavement, deprivations of rights by
>a state agent, or deprivations of the right to vote on such grounds as
>race, age, gender, nonpayment of a tax, etc. They have general police
>powers only over parcels ceded to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction
>of Congress by a state, such as the District of Columbia, over coastal
>waters, U.S. flag vessels, and the grounds of U.S. diplomatic missions
>abroad.
>
>--Jon Roland, 512/257-2606
>jon.roland@constitution.org
>www.constitution.org
>
>For more on this matter see
>
>"Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause", Jon Roland, July 29, 2002
>http://www.constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm
>
>"Rights of foreigners in the "war on terrorism", Jon Roland, November 26,
>2001 http://www.constitution.org/col/foreign_rights.htm
>
>Conflict of Criminal Laws, Edward S. Stimson, 1936.
>http://www.constitution.org/cmt/stimson/con_crim.htm
>
>A Dissertation on the Nature and Extent of the Jurisdiction of the Courts
>of the United States, Peter Stephen Du Ponceau (1824)
>http://www.constitution.org/cmt/psdp/juris.htm
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:34:59 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: "Lowell C. Savage" <libnw@immosys.com>

On 02-Aug-02, Lowell C. Savage wrote:

LCS> Interesting...do you (and Jon Roland) believe that Italy has
LCS> jurisdiction to prosecute this case?...

I don't speak for Roland. If an offense occurred in Italy, I believe Italy
has jurisdiction.

LCS> ... What crime was committed in Italy?...

I ain't no Italian cop, man. :)

LCS> ... Does this mean I am free to commit crimes that harm people in
other
LCS> countries as long as I never physically am present in those other
LCS> countries?

I believe that if one does not violate the laws of the state where one is,
that state may not abuse one. However, the state wherein the offended party
resides may petition the offender's government for assistance in prosecuting
the offender.

It's like those Nigerian scams - the US State Dept bitches to Nigeria and
the
Nigerians say. "Tsk tsk. We'll look into it."

If you were to question the veracity of Holocaust reports, should Canada be
able to prosecute you for violating Canadian law? (Assuming you're not a
Canadian citizen.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:13:01 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Jon Roland wrote:

> The arrest in Italy of Russian Alimzan Tokhtakhounov for inducing, or
> attempting to induce, Olympic skating judges to trade votes on
> contestants, raises some troubling constitutional issues.

Does it? I am not familiar with the Italian constitution, and I very
much doubt that Roland is either. Something tells me, though, that
he's talking about the USAn constitution, which is odd, because I have
never heard anyone argue that it restricts the actions of the Italian
police, in Italy. Indeed, given Roland's main theme in this piece,
which seems to be that what happens in Italy is none of the business
of anyone in the USA, his complaint about Italian police arresting
someone in Italy seems rather incongruous. Or does Roland imagine that
USAn paratroopers had landed in Italy in the dead of night, arrested
this gangster, and snuck him out of the country in a sack of potatoes?

> The U.S. does not have criminal jurisdiction over the entire planet,
> as much as it might like to assert such extraterritorial power. Italy
> have exclusive dominion over the territory of their nation, and do
> not elect members of the U.S. Congress to pass laws for that territory.
> Only Italy has jurisdiction in this case.

That is what Roland thinks ought to be the case, and it's a respectable
position to take, but so is the opposite. Merely asserting it doesn't
make it so. His position is not so obvious that it doesn't need to be
proven, and it happens that the USAn legal system takes the opposite
view. If Roland feels that this is wrong, and should be changed, he is
free to argue his case, and campaign for a new law, or even for a
constitutional amendment; there are lots of laws that need to be changed,
after all, and this may perhaps be one of them. But instead, Roland
seems to believe that the law already agrees with him, and that all three
branches of the USAn government have been breaking the law for years;
this is an extraordinary assertion (though stranger things have been
known to happen), and needs to be proven, not merely asserted.

> Extradition to the United States and prosecution in U.S. courts on
> this offense is without authority and a violation of the rights of
> the accused under the laws of nations.

And here comes Roland's most extraordinary claim of all, and one that I
think several posters on this theme seem to also make, perhaps
unconsciously. *Even if* Roland and the other supporters of strict
jurisdictional limits are right, and this crime is none of the business
of the USA, whose rights are being violated? Roland claims that somehow,
the rights of the *accused* have been violated, that a criminal has a
right to be tried in the jurisdiction where his crime was committed.
And this right supposedly derives from `the laws of nations'. But there
is no such right. The `laws of nations' is the set of customs that have
developed among governments to regulate how they behave with each other.
No individual has *any* rights under this body of customary law. Even if
the USA had invaded Italy to capture this gangster, the only injured party
(at least as far as international law is concerned) would be the Italian
Republic, not the gangster himself. It is *Italy's* sovereignty that is
allegedly being violated here, and it's for Italy to defend that
sovereignty, which it can most easily do by refusing extradition! The
Italians do still hold the guy after all, and if they agree with Roland
and think it wrong for the USA to prosecute the case they can just
prosecute him themselves, or let him go, and there's not a damn thing the
USA can do about it. The USA is certainly not going to invade Italy, or
stage a clandestine operation to make the arrest themselves, and cause an
incident with an important ally; not over some lousy gangster who didn't
even really do anything to the USA or to any USAn!

> Territorial jurisdiction is for the territory where an offense was
> committed, not where the effects took place.

This isn't true, at least under current USAn jurisprudence. But in any
case, when the criminal act is a telephone conversation (as it is here),
where did the offense take place? If I am in PA, and I call someone in
NJ to plot the murder of someone in CT, both NY and NJ have clear
jurisdiction to prosecute us, and so does the FedGov because we used
interstate wires (which are subject to the Commerce clause). And since
Roland is in fact wrong about the place where the effects took place
not having jurisdiction, CT can prosecute us as well, because that's
where the murder we were plotting was eventually committed.

Ed Fischang wrote:

> I believe that if one does not violate the laws of the state where one
> is, that state may not abuse one.

Not even to execute a valid warrant from another state? So if I kill
someone in NY and flee to NJ, NJ cannot arrest me on a NY warrant, because
I didn't violate any NJ laws?

> However, the state wherein the offended party resides may petition the
> offender's government for assistance in prosecuting the offender.

Which means what, exactly? Issuing a warrant and asking the state where
the guy is to arrest him and send him over? That's exactly what the USA
did with Italy, and you seem to be complaining about it.

> It's like those Nigerian scams - the US State Dept bitches to Nigeria
> and the Nigerians say. "Tsk tsk. We'll look into it."

However, if Nigeria ever actually bothered to arrest one of these guys
and sent him over here, are you saying that the USA should not be able
to prosecute him?

> If you were to question the veracity of Holocaust reports, should
> Canada be able to prosecute you for violating Canadian law? (Assuming
> you're not a Canadian citizen.)

Let's assume that you are. Should Canada be able to prosecute you then?
What if you were a Canadian acting entirely in Canada, and had never
even set foot outside Canada in your life; should Canada then be able to
prosecute you for lying about a historical fact? If we take the
libertarian viewpoint that nobody (including any state) may use force
or fraud against someone who has not initiated it, and that Holocaust
denial is not an `initiation of fraud', then Canada has no right to
prosecute *anybody* for doing this, no matter who they are, or where
they did it. But suppose that instead of lying you killed somebody,
which we agree ought to be a crime, and we agree that the country where
it happened does have a right to prosecute it. Does nobody else have
that right? And if they do so, are they violating your rights?

Suppose that instead of merely lying about the Holocaust, you actually
participated in it, by killing people in Lithuania, and Canada passed a
law allowing such crimes to be prosecuted there. Are you saying that
they have no *right* to do so? That if the Lithuanian govt isn't
interested in prosecuting you, nobody else has the right to do so?
Are you saying that Israel had no right to prosecute Eichmann, because
he committed his crimes in Germany, where they weren't even illegal?
I'm interested in how you justify such a claim, but more importantly
I'm interested in how such a claim can be logically derived from
libertarian principles.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:42:01 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>>No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case
>>The arrest in Italy of Russian Alimzan Tokhtakhounov for inducing,
>>or attempting to induce, Olympic skating judges to trade votes on
>>contestants, raises some troubling constitutional issues. He is
>>charged with "conspiracy to commit wire fraud" and "conspiracy to
>>commit bribery relating to sporting contests". However, the
>>allegation is that he committed the offenses while on the
>>territory of Italy, which at last report had not been admitted
>>into the United States as a state, nor did the Italian legislature
>>cede exclusive legislative jurisdiction to the U.S. Congress of
>>the parcel of land on which he acted, as the grounds of a U.S.
>>diplomatic mission.

>Interesting...do you (and Jon Roland) believe that Italy has
>jurisdiction to prosecute this case? What crime was committed in
>Italy? Does this mean I am free to commit crimes that harm people
>in other countries as long as I never physically am present in
>those other countries?
>Lowell C. Savage

The way I look at it, if this action did harm someone else and nobody else
was going to adjudicate it, it'd better be the USA than nobody -- and maybe
better the USA than some other countries. I don't care if it took place on
Mars.

But to me the question is, was this a victimful crime at all? What is the
Olympics anyway? Just a bunch of people playing. Not playing for stakes
AFAIK. Say you cheat your sister at checkers; is that a crime? No money
changed hands, after all. Where's the fraud? If you surreptitiously pay
your cousin to snatch one of your sister's men while she's not looking,
where's the fraud? What are the damages?

I don't know the details of the case, but somebody's going to have to show
me how this can be fraud unless the Olympics admits that they are playing
for stakes. And actually, I don't think they are! They play for some
chatchkas. Hugh Loebner even pointed out their gold medals are only plated
gold. Do the Olympics sell tickets with a guarantee of fair competition?
Or is a show all they give you?

Because of all the publicity involved, maybe a fairer analogy would be that
this is like bribing some people to be witnesses to the effect that a flying
saucer made a pit stop nearby, backing up your story. You could susequently
derive fame & fortune from that, and it'd be a lie, but not fraud. There's
no crime in making up stories like that.

Remember that it was not a crime to rig quiz shows when that became common
practice. Since then a USA statute has been passed against doing so, but I
would argue that statute to be unjust. (It's also of questionable
Constitutionality, and has a big loophole -- all you need do is post a tiny,
almost unnoticeable disclaimer if it's rigged.) Strangely, states also have
laws in effect mandating that pro wrestling BE rigged! (They make
competitive professional wrestling illegal, but exhibitions -- scripted
bouts -- are not competition.)

If they sold you tickets with the claim that the contests are fair, then
they could owe you your money back if they're not. However, I think
promoters would be very hesitant to make such a guarantee. Tickets to
entertainment events often come with lots of fine print waivers &
disclaimers as is. Similarly, I doubt judges of amateur events would
guarantee their fairness to their employers.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: No U.S. jurisdiction in Olympic skating case (fwd)
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 11:11:02 PDT
From: Ed Fischang <efischan@crcwnet.com>
To: Zev Sero <libnw@immosys.com>

On 02-Aug-02, Zev Sero wrote:

EF>> I believe that if one does not violate the laws of the state where one
EF>> is, that state may not abuse one.

EF>> However, the state wherein the offended party resides may petition the
EF>> offender's government for assistance in prosecuting the offender.

ZS> Which means what, exactly? Issuing a warrant and asking the state
where
ZS> the guy is to arrest him and send him over? That's exactly what the
USA
ZS> did with Italy, and you seem to be complaining about it.

Did this guy violate an American law while inside American territory, or was
an American harmed?

ZS> However, if Nigeria ever actually bothered to arrest one of these guys
ZS> and sent him over here, are you saying that the USA should not be able
ZS> to prosecute him?

If an American was injured, it should.

EF>> If you were to question the veracity of Holocaust reports, should
EF>> Canada be able to prosecute you for violating Canadian law? (Assuming
EF>> you're not a Canadian citizen.)

ZS> Let's assume that you are....

I'd like to see you address the issue of Canadian extraterritorial
jurisdiction.

ZS> ... Should Canada be able to prosecute you then? What if you were a
ZS> Canadian acting entirely in Canada, and had never even set foot outside
ZS> Canada in your life; should Canada then be able to prosecute you for
ZS> lying about a historical fact?...

Questioning the veracity is different than lying. If Canadians want such
laws, so be it.

ZS> ... If we take the libertarian viewpoint that nobody (including any
ZS> state) may use force or fraud against someone who has not initiated it,
ZS> and that Holocaust denial is not an `initiation of fraud', then Canada
ZS> has no right to prosecute *anybody* for doing this, no matter who they
ZS> are, or where they did it....

Agreed.

ZS> ... But suppose that instead of lying you killed somebody, which we
ZS> agree ought to be a crime,...

Not always.

ZS> ... and we agree that the country where it happened does have a right
to
ZS> prosecute it. Does nobody else have that right?...

The deceased's government has such authority.

ZS> ... And if they do so, are they violating your rights?

Maybe, depends on circumstances.

ZS> Suppose that instead of merely lying about the Holocaust, you actually
ZS> participated in it, by killing people in Lithuania, and Canada passed a
ZS> law allowing such crimes to be prosecuted there. Are you saying that
ZS> they have no *right* to do so?...

Yes I am.

ZS> ... That if the Lithuanian govt isn't interested in prosecuting you,
ZS> nobody else has the right to do so?...

If a citizen of another country was killed in Lithuania, then the government
of the deceased's country may attempt to prosecute the killer.

ZS> ... Are you saying that Israel had no right to prosecute Eichmann,
ZS> because he committed his crimes in Germany, where they weren't even
ZS> illegal?...

Correct.

ZS> ... I'm interested in how you justify such a claim, but more
importantly
ZS> I'm interested in how such a claim can be logically derived from
ZS> libertarian principles.

Sovereignty. No crime was committed in Israel; no Israeli was involved.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Story from NYPOST.COM
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 22:21:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Reichert <frank.reichert@excite.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

You have received an e-mail story from Frank and NYPOST.COM:

BUBBA: I\'D FIGHT AND DIE FOR ISRAEL
By ANDY GELLER and RICHARD JOHNSON
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/46092.htm

To reply to Frank, send an e-mail to frank.reichert@excite.com

Sign up for NYPOST.COM newsletters:
http://www.nypost.com/newsletter/signup.htm

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: consent from a puppet.......
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 22:31:16 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

sev,

and you complain about pol pot and eichman, lumping in lindh?

on 7/30/02 2:59 PM, Zev Sero at zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote:

> Osama bin
> Laden's problems with the USA have nothing to do with any violations
> of `sovereignty' - his declared problem is with the USAn bases in
> Saudi Arabia, which are there with the full consent of the House of
> Saud.

hey, sev, i ain't hard getting consent from a puppet, especially if you make
it rich while pulling the strings. the 'house' you speak of is a full blown
dictatorship and, playing both sides of the street, has led with the cash in
promoting fundamentalist islam like no where else. let's not forget where
the wtc bombers came from, eh? and who *didn't* get invaded.

consent, you say, in this context? rotflmao!! it's nothing more than the
consent the u.s. got from that other puppet, the shaw of iran, and the
result will be the same, someday, price to pay - the wtc being the first
installment.

larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: sev's patriotism......
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 00:12:07 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

sev,

i figured you were a patriot of the state.

on 8/2/02 3:08 PM, Zev Sero at zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote:

> You are saying that
> applying USAn law to acts committed in Afghanistan or Italy is wrong,
> and the USA has been wrong to do it for 200 years, and should stop;
> the USA figuratively asks: why? And since this is a libertarian list,
> I ask the same question.

i'd have no problem if the acts of the u.s. were aimed at promoting
individual liberty. but that has rarely been the case in the "homeland" or
abroad. what ya think about vietnam, sev? or enforcing u.s. drug laws in
columbia? the list is very, very long of such. cease and decease, u.s., in
the name of liberty.

larry

"nothing to learn from history", eh, shimon peres? then why the hell are
you still claiming you have a right to land owned by the cannanites? gawd's
chosen have nothing to learn, eh?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: A replay folks...
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:58:20 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

What is currently coming down, is nothing more than a ridiculous
replay of many prior scenes gone past. We've gone through all of this
before, and many of us believed we might have learned something in
this process. I am convinced we haven't!

It is even much far worse than that. We are now talking about a
unilateral war against Iraq, a war that no one on the entire planet
supports.

Let's check this out. The US government has the greatest capacity for
engaging in nuclear, biological, or chemical warfare on earth, and we
are targeting a sovereign nation for producing such weapons on its own
accord!

We are losing this one folks. And we should. If we do choose to go to
war against Iraq, this will be a display of outright stupidity and
arrogance. We have no moral authority to dictate to anyone what
defensive military capabilities such nations have the capacity of
fielding.

Iraq, per se, is no threat against the U.S. government. If it gets to
that point, then it is most likely a scenario of our own making.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Dark Lady for Oregon House
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 17:57:16 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

For the past year Theresa (the Dark Lady) and I have been corresponding
because she was interested in using my bubble mixture --
http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/lather.html -- in the bathtub for
photographing a bathing scene. I hadn't anticipated she'd get involved in
this sort of thing. Scott Ross reports via Adult Video News:

>PORTLAND, Ore. - AVN freelance writer Theresa A. Reed, better known
>to members of the adult industry by her penname Darklady, has been
>nominated to run for the District 42 seat for the Oregon House of
>Representatives on the Libertarian party ticket.

>A writer for numerous adult publications, Darklady wasn't expecting
>to run for office, but received an "off the floor" nomination at a
>Libertarian convention she attended. The ranking members of the
>Libertarian party were pleased with her nomination. "The chairmen of
>the committee and the gubernatorial candidate both expressed that
>they felt I was the perfect candidate. That if everyone were like
>me it would be a Libertarian paradise," Darklady told AVN.com

>Darklady isn't expecting to win the election." It's largely
>symbolic - the woman in office right now won her last election by
>80% of the vote. I'm here to introduce topics that are too hot to
>touch by the two major parties, hopefully bringing issues to the
>forefront. In this race, I'm more of a moral conscience than
>anything else, " Darklady told AVN.com

and

>contributions
>12602 SW Farmington Road, Beaverton, Oregon 97005.

>Darklady hopes to raise enough to get a statement in the voter's
>pamphlet that is distributed to all registered voters, in order to
>raise awareness of issues that pertain to District 42's many sex
>workers.

I don't know if that means they print the statement only if the candidate
raises a certain amount of money, or what. You may write to her at
darklady@darklady.com and visit http://www.darklady.com .

Coincidentally I, her correspondent, also was nominated for my state's
legislature (NY senate, SD 33) unsolicited (Republican and Conservative
parties), and my opponent too is an overwhelming favorite, having garnered
96% of the vote in her first general election, 2000, for the office. The
district lines have shifted very little.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

 

Subject: libnw Digest of: get.201_300
Date: 22 Mar 2003 10:23:00 -0000
From: libnw-help@immosys.com
To: admin@liberty-northwest.org

libnw Digest of: get.201_300

Topics (messages 201 through 300):

jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
201 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
218 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
219 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
220 by: Bill Anderson <bill@noreboots.com>
224 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
225 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
226 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
229 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
231 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
233 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
234 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
240 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
241 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
242 by: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
243 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
244 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
245 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
247 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
248 by: "Donald J. Yankovic" <yankovic@rockisland.com>
249 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
250 by: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
256 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
259 by: "Donald J. Yankovic" <yankovic@rockisland.com>
293 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

liberty & Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
202 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

i don't give a f--- about countries.....
203 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
204 by: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
206 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
209 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

Weekly subscriber update
205 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
252 by: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
207 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
210 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
211 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>

liberty & Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
208 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

Libertarian Insurance
212 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
213 by: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
214 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
216 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
221 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
222 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
235 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
236 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
237 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

stan smith, address confused in my my mind, airing dirty launrdy.....
215 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
217 by: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>

LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
223 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
230 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
239 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
246 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
251 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
254 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
255 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
258 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

popularity of externally applied overthrows
227 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
228 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>

More on jurisdiction
232 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

John Lindh, Patriot
238 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

Maybe there is hope after all...
253 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

Plan to invade Iraq
257 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
260 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
294 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
261 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
262 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
270 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
280 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
292 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

An interesting quote sent my way
263 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
264 by: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>

Who won the cold war?
265 by: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
266 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
271 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
277 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
285 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
286 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
299 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>

The New American - August 26, 2002 Issue
267 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

>From Washington State - A Tale of Terror
268 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

A MESSAGE FROM DAVID NOLAN, FOUNDER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
269 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

LP RELEASE: Economic summit
272 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
278 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
273 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
275 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
281 by: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
283 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
288 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

FRANK, SAVE ME FROM FOOLS.....
274 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
276 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
279 by: Bill Anderson <bill@noreboots.com>
284 by: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>

please join us!
282 by: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>

JESUS H.??? - Who won the cold war?
287 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
290 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
298 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>

national defense
289 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
291 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
296 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
297 by: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
300 by: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>

Interesting take on why Al Qaeda attacked us.
295 by: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>

Administrivia:

--- Administrative commands for the libnw list ---

I can handle administrative requests automatically. Please
do not send them to the list address! Instead, send
your message to the correct command address:

To subscribe to the list, send a message to:
<libnw-subscribe@immosys.com>

To remove your address from the list, send a message to:
<libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com>

Send mail to the following for info and FAQ for this list:
<libnw-info@immosys.com>
<libnw-faq@immosys.com>

To get messages 123 through 145 (a maximum of 100 per request), mail:
<libnw-get.123_145@immosys.com>

To get an index with subject and author for messages 123-456 , mail:
<libnw-index.123_456@immosys.com>

They are always returned as sets of 100, max 2000 per request,
so you'll actually get 100-499.

To receive all messages with the same subject as message 12345,
send an empty message to:
<libnw-thread.12345@immosys.com>

The messages do not really need to be empty, but I will ignore
their content. Only the ADDRESS you send to is important.

You can start a subscription for an alternate address,
for example "john@host.domain", just add a hyphen and your
address (with '=' instead of '@') after the command word:
<libnw-subscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

To stop subscription for this address, mail:
<libnw-unsubscribe-john=host.domain@immosys.com>

In both cases, I'll send a confirmation message to that address. When
you receive it, simply reply to it to complete your subscription.

If despite following these instructions, you do not get the
desired results, please contact my owner at
libnw-owner@immosys.com. Please be patient, my owner is a
lot slower than I am ;-)

--- Enclosed is a copy of the request I received.

Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Received: (qmail 23636 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsrelay02.mx.net (165.212.11.111)
by ucntcme224.dsl.micron.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:56 -0000
Received: from cmsapps02.cms.usa.net (HELO localhost) (165.212.11.138)
by cmsoutbound.mx.net with SMTP; 22 Mar 2003 10:22:30 -0000
Received: from liberty-northwest.org [203.148.66.242] by
cmsapps02.cms.usa.net
(ASMTP/libnw@usa.net) via mtad (C8.MAIN.2.05)
with ESMTP id 675HcVkV70253M38; Sat, 22 Mar 2003 10:22:24 GMT
Return-Path: <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Message-ID: <3E7C38C5.E746B290@liberty-northwest.org>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 18:19:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
Organization: Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en,en-GB
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: libnw-get.101_200@immosys.com, libnw-get.201_300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.301_400@immosys.com, libnw-get.401_500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.501_600@immosys.com, libnw-get.601_700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.701_800@immosys.com, libnw-get.801_900@immosys.com,
libnw-get.901_1000@immosys.com, libnw-get.1001_1100@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1101_1200@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1201_1300@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1301_1400@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1401_1500@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1501_1600@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1601_1700@immosys.com,
libnw-get.1701_1800@immosys.com, libnw-get.1801_1900@immosys.com
Subject: (no subject)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--
_____________________________________________________________________
LIBERTY NORTHWEST CONFERENCE & NEWSGROUP
"The only libertarian-oriented political discussion conference on
the Fidonet Z1 Backbone..." Fidonet SysOps AREAFIX: LIB_NW
To subscribe or unsubscribe: http://www.liberty-northwest.org/

Liberty Northwest Home Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
Admin matters: admin@liberty-northwest.org

...Liberty is never an option... only a condition to be lost
_____________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 21:52:25 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

group,

so much heat, with so little light. every place on this Earth is subject to
the natural law of liberty. anyone, any individual or a state, has a right
to stop the murder of innocents.

soverignity doesn't count, frank. hitler was a soverign. i'd have gladly
blown his head off, and any other agency which took on the task would have
my thanks. and then there is the "house of saud".

the thingo is, soverigns, including the u.s., don't give a crap about
liberty.

soverignity doesn't have squat to do with anything!! liberty is the *only*
standard, and the practicality of how to get it implemented.

if the u.s. had a limited state, and was trying, best it could, to promote
liberty, i'd be a supporter - soverignity a non-issue.

i respect no "soverigns". not even "our" own.

larry

ps frank, i figure you'll find a new found sense of freedom, and lack of
guilt, if you quit it with referring to the actions of the u.s.
government as "our" actions. i ain't implicated, frank, and i don't
figure you are either. maybe you need to remind me that you are no
philosophical anarchist. one nice thing about being one is ya can keep
the blood of your hands, no need to write "our".


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:43:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert....

> so much heat, with so little light. every place on this Earth is subject
to
> the natural law of liberty. anyone, any individual or a state, has a
right
> to stop the murder of innocents.

Larry, you and I know that, perhaps a lot of others around here do as
well, but in practical terms "liberty" as such, is a foreign word that
cannot be defined. That's what this group is here to discuss, and of
course, make known to those who have no clue.

> soverignity doesn't count, frank. hitler was a soverign. i'd have gladly
> blown his head off, and any other agency which took on the task would have
> my thanks. and then there is the "house of saud".

Sovereignty equals power. Yes, that is a pertinent issue to discuss.
It is also true that "Power" equals "Sovereignty"! Even Mao
understood that principle, that power flows from the "barrel of the
the gun". You do not have "liberty" unless you control the power to
make it happen. And, in that context, you still have this messy
problem of "sovereignty", and I believe it is necessary in
understanding the context of liberty.

You seem to want "liberty". Unfortunately, you don't have the
"power", or sovereign power, to bring it into fruition, now do you?

> the thingo is, soverigns, including the u.s., don't give a crap about
> liberty.

I have to agree, at least under the current circumstances. That
doesn't mean a government cannot be created that respects such as the
norm. There just are no such governments that current exist that
recognize "liberty" as an essential unalienable "right", although our
Constitution and Bill of Rights certainly point in that direction.

Which is exactly why government is SO important in this discussion!
Yes, a sovereign government! A government delegated by the people to
defend their rights as opposed to tyrants.

> soverignity doesn't have squat to do with anything!! liberty is the
*only*
> standard, and the practicality of how to get it implemented.

Okay, I agree. I agree with you that liberty is an unalienable
rights. Problem is, and will always be, where does the "power" rest
to guarantee such rights are protected? I guess that's the whole
issue.

But, you miss the point as well. Every nation. Including Afghanistan,
also has every right to self-deterination. We have no moral
imperative to decide for any nation what is "right". So yes,
sovereignty IS a real issue.

> i respect no "soverigns". not even "our" own.

Well, I guess I don't either. At least in terms of the current
government in power. But we still need a government to define
individual liberty, as our constitution and Declaration of
Independence suggests. We need a sovereign government to defend such
rights. That's all I am suggesting here.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 12:00:51 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>Okay, I agree. I agree with you that liberty is an unalienable
>rights.

and:

>But, you miss the point as well. Every nation. Including
>Afghanistan, also has every right to self-deterination.

How can those 2 rights meaningfully co-exist?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: 07 Aug 2002 14:49:18 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@noreboots.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 11:00, Robert Goodman wrote:
> Frank wrote in part:
>
> >Okay, I agree. I agree with you that liberty is an unalienable
> >rights.
>
> and:
>
> >But, you miss the point as well. Every nation. Including
> >Afghanistan, also has every right to self-deterination.
>
> How can those 2 rights meaningfully co-exist?

Your question seems to me to be due to a confusion of the "jurisdiction"
(hehehe) of state rights. The rights of a state are in reference to
other states, not in opposition to individuals. When viewed in that
light, it becomes clear that state rights are a result of individuals
rights, and refers to inter-state activities.

For example, a state has a right to exist, but that does not mean it's
citizens can not abolish or replace it. It means that another state does
not have the right to do so.

Sorry this is brief, but I have an election tonight I have to work on,
so time is short at the moment.

--
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
bill@noreboots.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 20:15:07 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> >Okay, I agree. I agree with you that liberty is an unalienable
> >rights.
> and:
> >But, you miss the point as well. Every nation. Including
> >Afghanistan, also has every right to self-deterination.

And, you replied:
> How can those 2 rights meaningfully co-exist?

Very simple. They have to co-exist. Governments exist as the
expression of the will of the people, of individuals. Articulately
put, governments exist as a repository of the will of those governed.
In a state that is comprised mainly of 99.9 percent of a muslim
population, some form of islamic rule will be the final expression or
outcome of free choice.

In states no longer comprised of individuals with a religious base,
such as a pluralistic democracy, a very different form of government
is the "will of the people". In the later case, there is NO moral
justification for imposing the use of military force to compel any
nation, comprised of its own constituents, to deprive them of their
own free choices on how they will be governed.

An example of that is rather stark really. In the US today, no
"Christian" group occupies such authority as to claim an audience of
such a capacity in which they can claim dominion, or a sizeable
majority to dictate a religious moral position on how the government
ought to consist.

You seem to understand "liberty" as a right to be morally operative
even in the absence of a universal acceptance of religious norms, such
as Islam. This is not something you can demonstrate, since in most
islamic societies, Islam defines such choices, and such choices are
made rather freely. If say, 90 percent of the population base freely
chooses to be governed accordingly, then it seems to me you have a
critical problem defining what liberty is all about!

It is also interesting, now that we are taking up this issue over
Iraq, is that Iraq is rather liberal in terms of religious
orientation, having a sizeable Christian population of historical
significance. There has been no draconian examples to stamp it out!
And the Christian sects in Iraq date back around 2,000 years! That is
NOT the case in Saudi Arabia and many other islamic states. What I am
saying is that there seems to be a display of religious freedom and
tolerance that exists in Iraq that is NOT present in adjacent islamic
states, such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, nor Iran.

So, now let me move full circle in some of this. That way you
reconcile all of this is to first recognize that individuals also have
a right to choose their own government, and how that government
exists. And, in this scheme of things, it appears that Iraq may have,
after all, a much more tolerant government in terms of dealing with
religious minorities than almost ALL of its immediate neighbours!

Will Iraq be viewed as a Jeffersonian Democracy? I doubt it. But who
are the villains, and what is this purpose behind this insatiable
desire to punish Iraq for "crimes" of building up its own military
arsenal for its own purpose and defence? If such is a crime, then the
US government certainly ought to be the first to be brought to trial
for abuse of military power! Yea, we have chemical, biological and
nuclear weapons at our disposal, and we are the ONLY nation on the
planet that has used nuclear weapons in the time of war!

The Shrub Regime's<tm> insanity of prosecuting this war against Iraq
is an insult to liberty. Liberty has at its core, self-determination,
not forced compulsion. People have a right to determine their own
future, and under their own conditions. The current US foreign policy
continues to be built around the concept of blatant aggression, and
liberty has nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

I rest my case.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:32:27 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:

>> >But, you miss the point as well. Every nation. Including
>> >Afghanistan, also has every right to self-deterination.

>And, you replied:

>> How can those 2 rights meaningfully co-exist?

>Very simple. They have to co-exist. Governments exist as the
>expression of the will of the people, of individuals. Articulately
>put, governments exist as a repository of the will of those
>governed....

>In states no longer comprised of individuals with a religious base,
>such as a pluralistic democracy, a very different form of government
>is the "will of the people". In the later case, there is NO moral
>justification for imposing the use of military force to compel any
>nation, comprised of its own constituents, to deprive them of their
>own free choices on how they will be governed.

and elsewhere:

>I can't believe this insanity [support for an attack on Iraq by USA]
>continues to engender wide support from the American people!

So what'll you have, Frank? The will of the people or...the will of the
people? It would appear that the "will of the people" in the USA is to
attack Iraq. And back to this post:

>You seem to understand "liberty" as a right to be morally operative
>even in the absence of a universal acceptance of religious norms,
>such as Islam. This is not something you can demonstrate, since in
>most islamic societies, Islam defines such choices, and such
>choices are made rather freely. If say, 90 percent of the
>population base freely chooses to be governed accordingly, then it
>seems to me you have a critical problem defining what liberty is
>all about!

What about the other 10%? Or does that count only in the USA, when you're
in it complaining about an impending attack on Iraq?

>Liberty has at its core,
>self-determination, not forced compulsion. People have a right to
>determine their own future, and under their own conditions.

So what's it going to be? Counting votes, or using your own independent
judgement about right & wrong?

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 17:52:41 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Thank you, Robert. I was so astounded by Frank's position that it
was difficult to attempt a response. Frank's message seemed to
indicate that his position is the exact opposite of libertarian - that
individual liberty is only important in a country where the government
supports it, but where there is a totalitarian govt then people have
no rights at all, and it's perfectly OK for that govt to oppress or
even murder people, because that expresses `the will of the people'.
Like `the Cuban people *want* to be governed by communism, so the
communist govt is right, and it's wrong to try to overthrow it'.
I can't see how someone with such an attitude can possibly ever have
imagined himself as having anything in common with libertarians, let
alone to actually call himself one, and set up a mailing list for
libertarian discussion! There's got to be something wrong with my
analysis, or Frank really didn't mean what he wrote, or something,
but it's hard to even be coherent when confronting such a contradiction.

I'm also still flabergasted by - and unable to respond to - Ed
Fischang's post last week, going along with the ultimate in `legal
positivism', or whatever it is that Ed and Frank really believe in;
his claim that Israel was wrong to prosecute Eichmann! Instead of
realising that if his philosophy produces such a result there must
be something wrong with it (`examine your premises'), he goes right
along with the result as if it were the most natural thing in the
world. How do you respond to that?!?

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (Ma'ariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:25:07 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 20:15 08/09/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Robert!
>
>Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
>I previously wrote:
> > >Okay, I agree. I agree with you that liberty is an unalienable
> > >rights.
> > and:
> > >But, you miss the point as well. Every nation. Including
> > >Afghanistan, also has every right to self-deterination.
>
>And, you replied:
> > How can those 2 rights meaningfully co-exist?
>
>Very simple. They have to co-exist. Governments exist as the
>expression of the will of the people, of individuals. Articulately
>put, governments exist as a repository of the will of those governed.

Come on Frank, this is rubbish, and you should know it. Certainly, the
"will of the people" will have something (usually, much less than it
should) to do with what government is running things. However, in the case
of a tyrant (like Hussein) the "will of the people" may be completely
different now than it was 30 years ago. The trouble is that the people no
longer have the *freedom* to change their government.

So, are you going to address Robert's question? How does every "nation",
including Afghanistan, have a right to "self-determination" when every
individual also has "unalienable rights". In other words, how can a nation
which tromps all over the "unalienable rights" of individuals also have
"every right to self-determination"? And no, you don't get to sidestep the
issue with a strawman like "gee we should attack Britain because their
people aren't as free as ours." Instead, deal with the issue of how
individual rights can co-exist with government sovereignty in places like
Taliban Afghanistan and Hussein's Iraq.

>In a state that is comprised mainly of 99.9 percent of a muslim
>population, some form of islamic rule will be the final expression or
>outcome of free choice.

I see. So, in states with a religious base, it is ok to have laws that
make changing your religion a capital crime? (Pakistan is one example.
BTW. If you are a muslim and become a christian, the punishment is losing
your head. And the laws were passed and were not repealed during the times
that democratically-elected civilian governments ran things.)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:23:30 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Zev asked:

>I'm also still flabergasted by - and unable to respond to - Ed
>Fischang's post last week, going along with the ultimate in `legal
>positivism', or whatever it is that Ed and Frank really believe in;
>his claim that Israel was wrong to prosecute Eichmann! Instead of
>realising that if his philosophy produces such a result there must
>be something wrong with it (`examine your premises'), he goes right
>along with the result as if it were the most natural thing in the
>world. How do you respond to that?!?
>--
I didn't even see that one. Maybe my eyes glazed over, or it could've
suffered due to the technical difficulties I've had here lately, which
caused some data loss. MCI says the line's not noisy.

To be fair, I'd have to read it to respond to it -- and even then I might
not due to the MEGO factor.

Surly Boy, Inert I,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 14:59:07 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Come on Frank, this is rubbish, and you should know it. Certainly, the
> "will of the people" will have something (usually, much less than it
> should) to do with what government is running things. However, in the
case
> of a tyrant (like Hussein) the "will of the people" may be completely
> different now than it was 30 years ago. The trouble is that the people no
> longer have the *freedom* to change their government.

That may, or may not, be a temporary position. People said the same
thing about the former Soviet Union and the east European block not
too long ago. All you can say is that likely today, and into the
foreseeable future, the people will not exercise their right to end
Hussein's rule. In time Hussein will go, and the government will
change, also according to the will of those governed.

At issue here is not whether or not the people will change the Iraqi
government. The issue is, what nation has the moral right to wage war
against another government unless it has come under attack, or being
aggressed upon by such a government? I submit, the US government has
no moral right or authority to engage in war with ANY government in
which it has not been attacked, or threatened with a credible attack.
Iraq would have conceivable way of waging a war against the US in my
lifetime, and contrary to Hussein's rhetoric, he knows that as well.

> So, are you going to address Robert's question? How does every "nation",
> including Afghanistan, have a right to "self-determination" when every
> individual also has "unalienable rights". In other words, how can a
nation
> which tromps all over the "unalienable rights" of individuals also have
> "every right to self-determination"?

Just as in America, people sell their God-given rights on the altar of
"security", safety, and other intangible prolicatives. The US
government tramples on our civil rights and liberties all the time,
yet the people choose not to overthrow that government and replace it
with a libertarian one, or one that recognizes inalienable rights.
Inalienable rights don't mean very much when the people refuse to
exercise such rights. I have the inalienable right to patronize
MacDonalds, Wendy's or Burger King any time I wish to, even on a daily
bases, to eat cheeseburgers and fries, and such establishments have a
right to cater to my desires for a profit.

> And no, you don't get to sidestep the
> issue with a strawman like "gee we should attack Britain because their
> people aren't as free as ours." Instead, deal with the issue of how
> individual rights can co-exist with government sovereignty in places like
> Taliban Afghanistan and Hussein's Iraq.

I just did, at least if you are following my threat at all. The US
government tramples on our civil liberties each and every day. If I
were home, I would be fined 350-400 percent for every pack of
cigarettes I purchase for personal consumption. The only way to avoid
such extortion would be to either steal them from a truck or grocery
store, or clandestinely make my own, which I do with beer when I am
home (make my own, that is, not stealing the stuff from store
shelves).

Because the US government operates on much the same way as any other
police state, and violates my and everyone else's civil rights and
liberties, does this give the Republic of Mozambique the moral
authority to wage a military attack upon the U.S.? Should the United
Nations place economic sanctions on the United States because we
operate as a rogue state and engage in hostile aggressive acts against
other nations? Or, rather, do the American people deserve the
government that we have chosen, and delegated such draconian police
state power to? Do the American people have a right to
self-determination, even if they choose to be represented by a rogue
police state?

> I see. So, in states with a religious base, it is ok to have laws that
> make changing your religion a capital crime? (Pakistan is one example.
> BTW. If you are a muslim and become a christian, the punishment is losing
> your head. And the laws were passed and were not repealed during the
times
> that democratically-elected civilian governments ran things.)

I would NOT live under any islamic regime. I would run away, cross
the border and leave and take my chances elsewhere, particularly if
90-100 percent of the population endorsed such a state. They have
absolutely the same right to live under such hell as the American
people do by supporting the present US government, even if that
government wages war against our personal liberties to smoke
cigarettes, drink beer or purchase and consume Big Macs, and steal
away 50 percent of our productive income for redistribution.

I am NOT suggesting however, that this should invite any moral
military aggression from any other nation on earth against the US,
although I can think of a great number who do have a right to defend
themselves against US aggression, and certainly would be morally
justified to wage a war against the US. In particular, every time the
US boards foreign flag vessels on the high seas, the host nation
should certainly consider such as an illegal act, and an act of war.
Problem is, it's the 'big bully on the block' syndrome. They can't do
very much else other than complain.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 15:29:28 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to Robert Goodman...

> Thank you, Robert. I was so astounded by Frank's position that it
> was difficult to attempt a response. Frank's message seemed to
> indicate that his position is the exact opposite of libertarian - that
> individual liberty is only important in a country where the government
> supports it, but where there is a totalitarian govt then people have
> no rights at all, and it's perfectly OK for that govt to oppress or
> even murder people, because that expresses `the will of the people'.

You only partially, or made a half-way approach to my position.
Liberty is always important, and I have always defended it in
principle. I also know that liberty, from a libertarian point of
view, has been largely absent from the US for a good many decades.
The will of the people does prevail, and in the case where the will of
the people is to surrender their inalienable rights, then they have
essentially created their own hell, and they deserve to live under it,
just as we do in the US. That doesn't mean that such a government
should not be overthrown and replaced, it simply means that the people
get the government that they deserve either by their own choice, or
their refusal to change it.

I see nothing in what I just wrote that could in any way be contrived
to mean that I support wanton aggression by government, nor does such
aggression mean that other nations have a moral duty to challenge such
a government militarily on behalf of people who have a government
largely of their own choice.

Some of the key reasons that I have lived for the last five years here
in the Philippines is largely due to the fact that I have far greater
economic and social freedom here (BY FAR) than I do in my own
country. Fast food restaurants aren't being targeted here by lawyers
and government investigators for providing food of choice for their
customers, and a pack of Winston here still costs around 35 cents (US)
compared to $3.50 - $4.00 or so back in the states. The police forces
here are inept, small, and largely ineffective, which means that even
some of the anti-liberty laws (such as the new one mandating the
wearing of seat belts) is a joke. I've yet to see anyone buckle up
here, much less getting arrested for not wearing a damn belt.

> Like `the Cuban people *want* to be governed by communism, so the
> communist govt is right, and it's wrong to try to overthrow it'.

I submit that that is correct. If the people delegate their freedom on
the altar of communism, then certainly by all means they deserve to
live under such a hell, just as we do in America. In South Vietnam
several decades ago, the US government fielded 500,000 military
personnel and billions of tax dollars to maintain a somewhat freer
government than existed in North Vietnam. Problem is, the people
wouldn't fight for freedom, they wanted the surrogate foreigners to do
that for them. We finally got booted out and rightly so, and the
South Vietnamese still wouldn't fight. And consequently, they
deserved the hell on earth of their own choosing and refusal to defend
their inalienable rights and liberties. The US government plainly was
morally wrong in becoming entangled in such a misplaced military
adventure, and we paid the price for that as we should have. And if
we keep choosing to pick fights throughout the islamic world, we'll
eventually get booted out again as well, and probably worse, we'll
experience far more attacks upon US soil, and US interests abroad, and
yes, we'll deserve that too!

> I can't see how someone with such an attitude can possibly ever have
> imagined himself as having anything in common with libertarians, let
> alone to actually call himself one, and set up a mailing list for
> libertarian discussion!

That's because I, as well as the Libertarian Party, do not consider
acts of foreign military adventurism to be a libertarian virtue,
particularly at a time when we have waves of anti-libertarian actions
in our own country to correct before we spend our time abroad changing
the world according to our own bereft moral values.

> There's got to be something wrong with my
> analysis, or Frank really didn't mean what he wrote, or something,
> but it's hard to even be coherent when confronting such a contradiction.

Well, I suppose that anyone who is a true believer in initiating
aggression and military force upon small, underdeveloped third-world
countries, to instil "correct" western values, religion, philosophy
and life-style, might find a problem with anyone who believes that
self-determination is a key libertarian and guiding principle in
conducting foreign policy -- so I am not particularly surprised by
your confusion.

You can't have liberty without the ideal of a sovereign government,
and the right to self-determination, even though the people themselves
may have little use for defending inalienable rights. Its a chance
you take. You give people a choice, or better yet, to allow them the
opportunity to take their own responsibility for their own lives and
the government that represents them. You don't make their own choices
for them -- you just don't morally have any high ground to send in the
troops and overthrow their government on behalf of themselves. First
such people largely resent such arrogance and abuse of power, and turn
around and hate you for sticking your nose in their business; and
secondly, you can only maintain such freedom and liberty by
administering such through the use of tremendous force, as we tried to
do in South Vietnam.

And yes, it is anti-libertarian to maintain such an aggressive foreign
policy. Libertarians believe we do not achieve political objectives
through the use of coercion or force. US foreign policy has sought to
achieve economic, social and military objectives through the use of
brute military force and aggression. And as such, this policy must be
opposed by anyone promoting libertarian idealism.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:29:09 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>Because the US government operates on much the same way as any other
>police state, and violates my and everyone else's civil rights and
>liberties, does this give the Republic of Mozambique the moral
>authority to wage a military attack upon the U.S.? Should the
>United Nations place economic sanctions on the United States
>because we operate as a rogue state and engage in hostile
>aggressive acts against other nations?

People have tried to get international sanctions applied to the USA or parts
thereof in matters such as elecion law. I believe Helskinki Watch tried to
do so. And I've long said that if someone like the Republic of Mozambique
would depose the US regime and replace it with something better, they'd have
my support.

>In particular, every time
>the US boards foreign flag vessels on the high seas, the host nation
>should certainly consider such as an illegal act, and an act of war.
>Problem is, it's the 'big bully on the block' syndrome. They can't
>do very much else other than complain.

AFAIK, they don't complain because they're glad to have the USA do the
policing.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 12:29:14 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>> Like `the Cuban people *want* to be governed by communism, so the
>> communist govt is right, and it's wrong to try to overthrow it'.

>I submit that that is correct. If the people delegate their freedom
>on the altar of communism, then certainly by all means they deserve
>to live under such a hell, just as we do in America.

Well, if everyone has what they deserve, what's left to discuss? Why bother
having a discussion list like this? Everyone has what they deserve already.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:45:24 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Zev:

I bifurcate my Libertarian positions on these matters.

I believe that in a sovereignty, particularly one that I am going to live
in, Libertarian values and concurrent laws are supreme.
However, without such a society I do not believe that another sovereignty
has a legal right to tell another one what to do. I say this with the
fearful observance of the principle of reciprocity. i.e. what you consider
to be acceptable or moral in your society, another society may not consider
so. Does that mean that any government should have the legal right to take
action in another country to enact the way it thinks should be done? It goes
both ways, and if you don't want Iraq to dictate how we should live here,
then you can not expect to do the same to them.
That is under the assumption of a legal right.

However, and I am deviating from the party line on this one, I do not
believe that we should have to adhere to Libertarian principles when dealing
with other countries in the capacity of trade or international relations (as
opposed to intranational relations). I do not think that we should hobble
ourselves in dealing with otherwise very nasty governments who don't have
Libertarian precepts to restrain them in any way.

Finally, I do agree with you, at least from our own subjective and
pugnacious way, that for other governments to oppress their populace the way
they do is morally repugnant, and something should be done about it. The
question is what?
I would/could agree with just about anything that doesn't directly conflict
w/what I said above, e.g. provide asylum to them in our country, fund an
underground railroad/shipping route to provide a way out for them, even if
we could make an honest case that their government doesn't really represent
the will of the people to wage war on them to force them to cease and desist
their oppression. (The latter does not violate the legal respect of
sovereignty, because war is a legal form of communication that implicitly
respects the enemy's sovereignty)

We could proclaim a national policy of invasion whenever a good and
legitimate evidentiary case could be made that a country's govt is really
not a govt of its people, but rather an invading force that holds them
against their will.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Zev Sero" <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.

> Thank you, Robert. I was so astounded by Frank's position that it
> was difficult to attempt a response. Frank's message seemed to
> indicate that his position is the exact opposite of libertarian - that
> individual liberty is only important in a country where the government
> supports it, but where there is a totalitarian govt then people have
> no rights at all, and it's perfectly OK for that govt to oppress or
> even murder people, because that expresses `the will of the people'.
> Like `the Cuban people *want* to be governed by communism, so the
> communist govt is right, and it's wrong to try to overthrow it'.
> I can't see how someone with such an attitude can possibly ever have
> imagined himself as having anything in common with libertarians, let
> alone to actually call himself one, and set up a mailing list for
> libertarian discussion! There's got to be something wrong with my
> analysis, or Frank really didn't mean what he wrote, or something,
> but it's hard to even be coherent when confronting such a contradiction.
>
> I'm also still flabergasted by - and unable to respond to - Ed
> Fischang's post last week, going along with the ultimate in `legal
> positivism', or whatever it is that Ed and Frank really believe in;
> his claim that Israel was wrong to prosecute Eichmann! Instead of
> realising that if his philosophy produces such a result there must
> be something wrong with it (`examine your premises'), he goes right
> along with the result as if it were the most natural thing in the
> world. How do you respond to that?!?
>
> --
> Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
> zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
> Shimon Peres (Ma'ariv interview, 1993)
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:30:59 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Gary!

Gary Triest wrote to Sev Sero...

> I believe that in a sovereignty, particularly one that I am going to live
> in, Libertarian values and concurrent laws are supreme.
> However, without such a society I do not believe that another sovereignty
> has a legal right to tell another one what to do. I say this with the
> fearful observance of the principle of reciprocity. i.e. what you consider
> to be acceptable or moral in your society, another society may not
consider
> so. Does that mean that any government should have the legal right to take
> action in another country to enact the way it thinks should be done? It
goes
> both ways, and if you don't want Iraq to dictate how we should live here,
> then you can not expect to do the same to them.
> That is under the assumption of a legal right.

You have just raised some interesting and serious matters that ought
to have a lot to do with the way all nations deal with each other.

For starters, I've listened carefully to the arguments of Zev and
Robert, particularly regarding the rightful use of force. Both seem to
assume that it is perfectly okay for any nation to initiate force
against another one, if in fact the end result is a greater liberty in
the nation than the government that preceded it. Both gentlemen seem
to assume three things:

1. That the people in such a target country REALLY want such liberty
and freedom, and are willing to support it once it is forced upon
them.

2. That liberty, as a principle, can be a "forced solution",
vis-a-vis, forcing a country, culture and society to accept that
liberty is better than the previous status quo simply because the
"powers that make it a reality" justify it as a superior position.
And,

3. That external force will change the hearts and minds of a target
population, and thereby become self perpetuating.

Now, although many who love and cherish liberty, may be zealous and
unrelenting in making it a global reality, we do have to ask ourselves
if this really ever works as a practical means.

Three decades ago, we tried to force our morality and visions of
democracy and liberty upon South Vietnam. Not only did we get booted
out, but the South Vietnamese refused to fight or support their
inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Although the US
government committed hundreds of thousands of mercenary forces to
install a government more friendly to our values, along with billions
of dollars in military aid, liberty regressed tremendously with the
overthrow of the South Vietnamese puppet regime installed by the US
government.

It can now be rightfully argued, that subsequent to all of this, the
current Vietnamese regime has far more liberty, and a growing private
sector economic base that South Vietnam enjoyed when it was being
forced upon them by the US government. What Goodman and Sero fail to
recognize is that "liberty" is not something that can be achieved
through the use of force! The Libertarian Party understands this
quite well, as I do. For many however, their love for "liberty" means
that by God everyone will enjoy liberty whether they like it or not,
or else!

I've noted that Robert, in particular, seems to relish the notion that
he is a pragmatist. However, historically, in practical terms, any
attempts to force "liberty" through the use of external power has
usually failed dismally, only to resurrect itself on its own accord,
later. Another great example is the demise of the former Soviet
Union, and the Eastern European block formerly under a strong
communist fraternity. We spent billions to arm ourselves, and
countless billions to destabilize the Soviet socialist structure.
Eventually, individual countries spawned their own leaders, such as
Gorbechev, Yeltsen and finally Putin to radically change social,
political and economic structures because the old ideas failed
miserably!

Liberty sells best when it is the "home grown" variety, and is not
being forced upon a target population through external aggression and
force! Even the face of Communist China is changing rapidly, and has
nothing at all to do with US military force! Yea, we tried that too,
and it also failed. North Korea will also eventually succumb to end
tyranny and bring about economic and social change in the direction of
private property, civil liberties, and a change of the old guard with
a new one, hopefully one much better than the present, and probably
with a unification with South Korea.

One of the things I have been trying to hammer home to everyone is
that US foreign policy has been a dismal failure. Most of the changes
I am talking about right now have very little to do with any of the
military adventurisms of five decades of a badly failed foreign
policy. With the Shrub Regime's<tm> current fetish for attacking Iraq
may finally make US foreign policy finally irrelevant, since virtually
no one supports such military belligerency anymore! Current estimates
are that the US will spend about $80 billion, paid by US taxpayers, to
topple Hussein, and that presupposes that such actions will even be
tolerated by international consensus!

Not only will such actions further bankrupt an already bankrupt US
Treasury, it will isolate the US as a rogue state, using the same
principles that we claim to despise by those we detest so much. It
will also go much further to creating division between the islamic
world and the United States, and anyone else who dares to support such
wanton aggression, inviting further terrorist attacks and setting
liberty back ever further. The only bright spot on the horizon may be
the beginning of the end of US imperialism.

If true peace and liberty will come out of any of this, it will likely
be in the form of a Ghandi style non-violent resistance to US
aggression. We have the monumental military power, but in the face of
it all, it may become the satire of the entire 21st century, that
military power is evil when it is used in such a way to force people
to change their values, beliefs, and ideals. And right now we are
dealing with real cultures, real people, who believe very different
than we do. All of the military might on earth should not be
permitted as morally acceptable to change the hearts and minds of such
people who are very different from our own.

The US government has stooped to the lowest level, the lowest common
denominator of morality, in trying to use brute force for several
decades to change the landscape of thinking, to force a change in
life-style, morality, and even under the guise and garb of "liberty".
When we stoop to such a level, we have lost all moral arguments for
the conduct of our actions. And the whole planet is now watching
everything that we do.

For crying out loud, we can't even clean up our own stinking mess, our
own immorality, and the conditions upon which we wage all such wars
against human behaviour at home on our own turf! How absurd and
ridiculous are our moral judgements on the rest of the planet! We
have become only a nation with no moral soul -- we have long sold
ourselves out to the notion of a omnipotent "government". All I am
saying here is that we ourselves, have no idea of what real liberty is
all about, yet we choose to impose our inane values on the rest of the
plant by brute force!

In time, the piper will be paid in due course.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:38:52 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote, although I believe you added a caveat...
> >I can't believe this insanity [support for an attack on Iraq by USA]
> >continues to engender wide support from the American people!

You replied:
> So what'll you have, Frank? The will of the people or...the will of the
> people? It would appear that the "will of the people" in the USA is to
> attack Iraq. And back to this post:

Seems to me it is rather irrelevant. I'm one vote, as you are. I may
have my own thoughts, ideals etc., but they are essentially irrelevant
if I cannot convince enough individuals to come around to my way of
thinking. For liberty to survive, people have to be convinced that it
is the best opportunity for themselves, and that takes time. It
cannot be a product of force.

As I stated last night, if I were forced to live in an islamic
government, I would flee, cross the border, and take my chances
elsewhere. If I were 1-10 percent of a population who felt otherwise,
I would have the option to fight back, and probably lose, or else
simply leave.

Judging from what I currently understand is the Shrub Regime's<tm>
level of support, and I considering the later option, although in all
practical terms, I am there already anyway.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 22:52:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Zev Sero...

> Zev asked:
> >I'm also still flabergasted by - and unable to respond to - Ed
> >Fischang's post last week, going along with the ultimate in `legal
> >positivism', or whatever it is that Ed and Frank really believe in;
> >his claim that Israel was wrong to prosecute Eichmann! Instead of
> >realising that if his philosophy produces such a result there must
> >be something wrong with it (`examine your premises'), he goes right
> >along with the result as if it were the most natural thing in the
> >world. How do you respond to that?!?

You replied:
> I didn't even see that one. Maybe my eyes glazed over, or it could've
> suffered due to the technical difficulties I've had here lately, which
> caused some data loss. MCI says the line's not noisy.
> To be fair, I'd have to read it to respond to it -- and even then I might
> not due to the MEGO factor.

I no longer have Ed's commentary anymore, but I believe it had
something to do with Israel kidnaping Eichmann in another country, and
then bringing him to trial in Israel for crimes that were not consider
a crime in his host country. I can't put my words in Ed's mouth, but
I would assume he believed that Israel's kidnapping of Eichmann was
illegal under international law, since Israel had no jurisdiction to
carry out such an operation on foreign soil in which it had no
jurisdiction.

I do remember the history of this, and the subsequent trial. I do not
remember if the host country in this case was either Argentina or
Brazil, but I would have to come down on the side that Israel did
violate the laws of the host country in carrying out an illegal
kidnapping. I have a hard time faulting Israel's actions in this in
view of the many illegal actions our own government has perpetrated on
even wider scales than this, such as illegal boarding of international
vessels in international waters, etc. All I would suggest is that
Israel's actions were illegal in the host country, as are similar US
actions that are taking place to this day in Afghanistan and
elsewhere.

I have no idea where you wish to go with this either. If you support
such actions as expedient, or necessary to achieve liberty, I would
have to disagree with you.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:51:20 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>Both seem
>to assume that it is perfectly okay for any nation to initiate force
>against another one, if in fact the end result is a greater liberty
>in the nation than the government that preceded it. Both gentlemen
>seem to assume three things:

>1. That the people in such a target country REALLY want such liberty
>and freedom, and are willing to support it once it is forced upon
>them.

There's your problem right there. Freedom, properly understood, is
IMPOSSIBLE to force on anybody. Freedom allows anyone to make whatever
arrangements they want, so they can never be considered to have been forced
into anything. For example, if people want to live by religious law re
standards of dress, they're not forced to adopt other standards -- only to
allow those of other religions THEIR standards as well.

>2. That liberty, as a principle, can be a "forced solution",
>vis-a-vis, forcing a country, culture and society to accept that
>liberty is better than the previous status quo simply because the
>"powers that make it a reality" justify it as a superior position.

Another problem there may be your understanding of "accept". It'd be nice
if all people's thinking were in line with that of libertarians, but all we
ask is that they accept the freedom of others in the sense of not using
aggression against them, even if they think aggression would be a cool thing
to do. In other words, I don't care if the criminal changes in hir mind,
only that s/he not COMMIT crimes. If the only reason they don't commit them
is that they're outgunned, that's sufficient, even though "hearts and minds"
might be nice. They're not required to believe, only to submit.

>And,

>3. That external force will change the hearts and minds of a target
>population, and thereby become self perpetuating.

I don't assume that. As long as they don't shoot, I don't care how much
they WANT to shoot, or BELIEVE IN shooting. And I don't mind if the reason
for their forebearance is simple fear. Yeah, respect would be nice, but
fear is sufficient. And of course without changing hearts and minds, the
freedom won't self perpetuate, but better it exist for a while than never.

>What Goodman and Sero
>fail to recognize is that "liberty" is not something that can be
>achieved through the use of force!

Maybe you have a different definition of "liberty", else you fail to
recognize that, yes it CAN be achieved thru force. You use force to deter
the criminal, you're free.

>I've noted that Robert, in particular, seems to relish the notion
>that he is a pragmatist.

All I say is that I do take practical considerations into account. for
instance, the expense considerations you bring up (snipped) are well taken
as a factor.

>Liberty sells best when it is the "home grown" variety,

Of course that's best, but 2nd best is pretty good.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:14:59 -0700
From: "Donald J. Yankovic" <yankovic@rockisland.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I have lurked on this list for a long time, and have closely following the
discussion on identifying an appropriate foreign policy based on libertarian
principles. Here are some ideas I put together a long time ago for what I
expect will be a thorough critique:

Much of the world (pick your country) is going through revolutions (out of
the middle ages into the XXI century?), and when peaceful means of
revolution
don't exist, then revolutions result in: (1) carnage, and (2) losers.

If our representatives are convinced that "something must be done" about a
revolution, I suggest the following:

To reduce the carnage, invade the place with an army of CIA agents armed
with
trunk loads of US$100 bills. Buy up every weapon in sight, doesn't matter
if
from good guys, bad guys, or other guys. Here is $300 for that uzi; you
want
$7000 for that rocket launcher, ok; $50,000 to the crew of that tank, etc.
etc. Put the purchased arms on a barge and dump them in the middle of the
ocean. This will certainly help reduce the carnage.

As for the losers, whether good guys, bad guys or other guys, give them
visas to come to the U.S. After all, we are a nation of about 280 million
populated by the losers of most every revolution that has occurred since
1492.

To be continued.......... Yank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:53:18 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Now finally, we seem to be getting somewhere after all.

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> There's your problem right there. Freedom, properly understood, is
> IMPOSSIBLE to force on anybody. Freedom allows anyone to make whatever
> arrangements they want, so they can never be considered to have been
forced
> into anything. For example, if people want to live by religious law re
> standards of dress, they're not forced to adopt other standards -- only to
> allow those of other religions THEIR standards as well.

I think I pretty well understand the basis of your argument, finally.
It is YOUR FREEDOM that you believe can be achieved by force against
those who don't want you to do several things. You are forcing
everyone else to make certain choices, only using force to ensure that
they leave you alone to make your own choices.

The problem however is that in attacking Afghanistan, whose choices
are you protecting? You don't live in Afghanistan. Why should the US
government be in the business of protecting individual choice by
overthrowing the pre-existing Afghan government, when we cannot
identify anyone particularly who are being denied their choices
(although we can identify vague groups of people, primarily some
women, who don't particularly want to strut around in burkas).

The best you will ever achieve is to install a government that will
allow more choices, such as the current puppet regime in Kabul. I've
noticed Hamil Karzei doesn't even trust his own security forces, and
that the US government has assumed Karzei's security just to keep him
alive and in power. Certainly reminds me a lot of the former South
Vietnamese regime, although even that one seemed to be more stable
than the current Afghan regime.

Even if you can find some morality, such as MORE FREEDOM, or even the
possibility of FREEDOM for anyone who really wants it, can you
practically justify the tremendous cost in perpetuating a government
in power, continually defending that government against all of its
enemies, forever? You certainly will find the financial burden and
cost prohibitive, particularly when our government is frantically
search for additional states such as Iraq, and probably later on,
Iran, and so forth to continue this forced hegemony to support FREEDOM
for those who might want it!

The cost is more than the immediate one, that is the direct cost of
providing military and security forces. As in Pakistan, US citizens
and interests are under such threats that even yesterday a foreign
Christian medical mission was attacked for US interference in
Afghanistan! Prior to the Afghan adventure, Americans could walk
around quite freely in places such as Karachi. That is no longer the
case, and even US diplomatic missions have been downsized and have
largely pulled out. So the cost is also an indirect one, and will
affect everything from economic trade, to the security of western
economic, religious or social interests that have been put in place
for decades.

> Another problem there may be your understanding of "accept". It'd be nice
> if all people's thinking were in line with that of libertarians, but all
we
> ask is that they accept the freedom of others in the sense of not using
> aggression against them, even if they think aggression would be a cool
thing
> to do. In other words, I don't care if the criminal changes in hir mind,
> only that s/he not COMMIT crimes. If the only reason they don't commit
them
> is that they're outgunned, that's sufficient, even though "hearts and
minds"
> might be nice. They're not required to believe, only to submit.

I might be more sympathetic if you lived in Afghanistan, and wanted to
protect YOUR CHOICES, but your problem here is specifically
identifying whose freedom you are trying to protect, and at what
cost. You might point to the hordes of political refugees that have
been displaced, and have sense returned, but if that is the case, why
are they not supporting the new Afghan puppet regime with guns and
bullets? No, it appears that only foreign interests, mainly the US
government is doing that, since the local security forces have their
allegiance mostly in the direction of the war lords, and factional
powers that are still in control.

Which is why I've been pointing out that unless people really want
their own freedom, and are willing to fight for it themselves, then it
is useless to export by force a government that recognizes FREEDOM and
maintain such a government perpetually in power at tremendous cost.

I previously wrote:
> >3. That external force will change the hearts and minds of a target
> >population, and thereby become self perpetuating.

And, you replied:
> I don't assume that. As long as they don't shoot, I don't care how much
> they WANT to shoot, or BELIEVE IN shooting. And I don't mind if the
reason
> for their forebearance is simple fear. Yeah, respect would be nice, but
> fear is sufficient. And of course without changing hearts and minds, the
> freedom won't self perpetuate, but better it exist for a while than never.

Since I believe I have made my case that the Afghans themselves will
not fight to defend their inalienable rights, that means that US
taxpayers will have to come up with the bucks to further build up the
Afghan regime's security forces to make sure that if anyone in
Afghanistan really wants to be free, they can be! Even your own
assessment above indicates that if such security ever breaks down,
those seething enemies of the Afghan regime, and the US government,
will be perpetually in the background plotting and carrying out
terrorist attacks against the Afghan regime and US government
interests anywhere.

> Maybe you have a different definition of "liberty", else you fail to
> recognize that, yes it CAN be achieved thru force. You use force to deter
> the criminal, you're free.

Let's stay focused upon foreign policy, and using external force to
bring about freedom. I have no doubt that the US government could
conceivably bankrupt the US Treasury, and install such tremendous
force everywhere in Afghanistan to ensure that if ANYONE really wants
to make individual choices, they will be protected. We could field 1
million military and security personnel in Afghanistan and use
tremendous firepower to annihilate entire villages, war lord forces,
and wipe out anyone proposing to prohibit anyone from making their own
free choices. We could conceivably be able to provide such protection
in 95 percent of the cases, and insofar as our forces are committed,
we could undoubtedly provide for freedom of choice, again, to anyone
in Afghanistan who really wants to make such choices. The costs would
be staggering, and again, we are only talking about Afghanistan right
now. We're also in the planning stages of assuming such a
responsibility for Iraq, and probably later on Iran, and God knows
where else.

> All I say is that I do take practical considerations into account. for
> instance, the expense considerations you bring up (snipped) are well taken
> as a factor.

Well, if you really believe that US foreign policy should be guided by
a sense of practicality, then that alone should indicate that current
US foreign policy is insane, if not for moral reasons. I do not
believe that liberty can be exported, and certainly should not become
a goal of US foreign policy, although ostensibly it has. We would be
better served by resurrecting liberty once again in the United States
and using the necessary force to protect free choice at home. By
example, others will follow if we can demonstrate that it is better
than other alternatives.

I am reminded of the aftermath of the American revolution, how many
other countries followed our example, even immolating in many ways the
US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It wasn't that we chose to export
the fundamental libertarian goals of liberty, it was simply seen by
others as a way to end tyranny and despotism. We didn't export guns,
or military personnel to latin America or elsewhere. Even Ho Che Minh
had great respect for the founders of the American republic. The best
way to promote liberty is to live it, and provide an example for
others.

One of the things that I remember profoundly during the short lived
pro-Democracy protests at Tennimen Square, was that those promoting
liberty in China erected a small scale replica of the Statue of
Liberty, just prior to being crushed under tank tracks by the
notorious PLA. Why do you suppose that they did that? My guess, and
I believe it is fairly accurate, is that those promoting liberty
looked at the example of America and wished to bring such liberty to
China! You'll note that they were brandishing firearms exported to
them by the US, nor did we send in massive waves of US military
personnel to ensure that liberty might have a chance to take hold.

Had the protesters been able to hold out much longer, the protests
would obviously have caught on in various other major cities across
China, and the marxist regime in power would have a problem that even
the PLA might find difficult to restrain, and at great economic costs
to China's economic modernization programme.

My point here, as usual, is that liberty cannot be exported by force.
It can be seen as an example of a better way if we choose to live it
ourselves, and we have a long, long way to go, in getting the hearts
and minds of Americans to accept the tenants of liberty once again.

The only example US foreign policy perpetuates today is one of using
brute force to achieve hegemony over much of the third world, and
particularly the islamic world at the moment. If the Shrub Regime<tm>
really initiates war on Iraq it will most certainly solidify
resentment and hatred from Morocco to Indonesia and open a pandora's
box of horrific proportions against the United States, since we will
largely be seen as acting alone.

And, if you believe in pragmatism, I trust even with that core
realization, you can see that this kind of gun boat foreign policy is
insane and counterproductive in bringing about a freer world. Likely
continuing such insanity will have the reverse effect, that is
bringing about a stronger resolve on the part of those who wish to use
islam as the basis retaliation against the infidels and aggressors.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 01:44:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Robert,

> >What Goodman and Sero
> >fail to recognize is that "liberty" is not
> something that can be
> >achieved through the use of force!
>
> Maybe you have a different definition of "liberty",
> else you fail to
> recognize that, yes it CAN be achieved thru force.
> You use force to deter
> the criminal, you're free.

I am in complete agreement with Frank that liberty
cannot be achieved by initiating force. "Using force
to deter a criminal" is self-defense - a use of force
in response to an initiation of force. It is not an
initiation of force itself.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:51:19 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

>To reduce the carnage, invade the place with an army of CIA agents armed
with
>trunk loads of US$100 bills. Buy up every weapon in sight, doesn't matter
if
>from good guys, bad guys, or other guys. Here is $300 for that uzi; you
want
>$7000 for that rocket launcher, ok; $50,000 to the crew of that tank, etc.
>etc. Put the purchased arms on a barge and dump them in the middle of the
>ocean. This will certainly help reduce the carnage.

Nice try. However, what's to prevent the folks with the weapons from
simply *taking* those trunkloads of cash. And assuming you have a method,
what prevents some people from keeping their guns and then *taking* the
cash (or other property) from the now-gunless people who sold their guns?

>As for the losers, whether good guys, bad guys or other guys, give them
>visas to come to the U.S. After all, we are a nation of about 280 million
>populated by the losers of most every revolution that has occurred since
1492.

Not a bad idea--if you can make the details work.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:57:24 -0700
From: "Donald J. Yankovic" <yankovic@rockisland.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Monday 12 August 2002 04:51 pm, you wrote:

Hello Lowell and others:

Yank: > >To reduce the carnage, invade the place with an army of CIA agents
armed
> > with trunk loads of US$100 bills. Buy up every weapon in sight, doesn't
> > matter if from good guys, bad guys, or other guys. Here is $300 for
that
> > uzi; you want $7000 for that rocket launcher, ok; $50,000 to the crew of
> > that tank, etc. etc. Put the purchased arms on a barge and dump them in
> > the middle of the ocean. This will certainly help reduce the carnage.
>
Lowell: > Nice try. However, what's to prevent the folks with the weapons
from
> simply *taking* those trunkloads of cash. And assuming you have a method,
> what prevents some people from keeping their guns and then *taking* the
> cash (or other property) from the now-gunless people who sold their guns?

Yank: I note that drug smugglers illegally enter most any country they want
with trunkloads of cash and buy drugs and other stuff without much trouble,
and the sellers of drugs, etc. seem to be willing to accept the money
without
fear of the consequences. They also illegally come into other countries
with
trunkloads of drugs, find ready buyers, and leave with their cash more often
than not.

Yes, there are practical problems (transactions costs in the language of
economics) for both drug and gun buyers and sellers to overcome, and both
markets seem to grow and thrive. This suggests that many of the problems
are
overcome. Sometimes corruption has its virtues

I recognize that where there is a vacuum of guns, some sellers will try to
fill that vacuum. Do you suppose that captains of ships loaded with guns
could be persuaded with enough cash to change their next port of call?
Airplanes might be another story, but it's very expensive to haul very heavy
weapons and ammunition around in planes.

I've offered my suggestion for two reasons: I think it takes the moral high
ground; I believe that it is morally superior to shoot people with words and
dollar bills over shooting them with guns and bombs. The other reason is
that I believe that it would be much less costly to buy rather than bomb,
assuming that we agree on some reasons to do either.

When I worked these ideas out, my models were revolutions such as those in
Central America and Haiti; I think Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq might fit now.

Yank > >As for the losers, whether good guys, bad guys or other guys, give
them
> >visas to come to the U.S. After all, we are a nation of about 280
million
> >populated by the losers of most every revolution that has occurred since
> > 1492.

Lowell> Not a bad idea--if you can make the details work.
>
To be continued........ Yank
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:30:09 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 12:57 08/13/02 -0700, you wrote:
>On Monday 12 August 2002 04:51 pm, you wrote:
>
>Hello Lowell and others:
>
>Yank: > >To reduce the carnage, invade the place with an army of CIA
agents
>armed
> > > with trunk loads of US$100 bills. Buy up every weapon in sight,
doesn't
> > > matter if from good guys, bad guys, or other guys. Here is $300 for
that
> > > uzi; you want $7000 for that rocket launcher, ok; $50,000 to the crew
of
> > > that tank, etc. etc. Put the purchased arms on a barge and dump them
in
> > > the middle of the ocean. This will certainly help reduce the carnage.
> >
>Lowell: > Nice try. However, what's to prevent the folks with the weapons
>from
> > simply *taking* those trunkloads of cash. And assuming you have a
method,
> > what prevents some people from keeping their guns and then *taking* the
> > cash (or other property) from the now-gunless people who sold their
guns?
>
>Yank: I note that drug smugglers illegally enter most any country they
want
>with trunkloads of cash and buy drugs and other stuff without much trouble,
>and the sellers of drugs, etc. seem to be willing to accept the money
without
>fear of the consequences. They also illegally come into other countries
with
>trunkloads of drugs, find ready buyers, and leave with their cash more
often
>than not.

And then the drug smugglers come back again later with another load of cash
for drugs. So for the drug sellers, killing smugglers for their money
would be less profitable than selling them what they want so that they (and
their friends and competitors) keep coming back for more. However, what
you are proposing for buying up weapons would be a one-time event. Unless,
of course, your plan provides an opportunity for arbitrage--namely buying
the Uzi for $200 in the country next door, paying someone $10 to transport
it to you, and then selling it to the CIA for $300. That'd get you the
recurring transactions that keeps the agents alive. But it probably would
accomplish the exact opposite of what you want. (Cool! I can sell 3 Uzi's
to the CIA for the price of 4!)

>Yes, there are practical problems (transactions costs in the language of
>economics) for both drug and gun buyers and sellers to overcome, and both
>markets seem to grow and thrive. This suggests that many of the problems
are
>overcome. Sometimes corruption has its virtues

I'd certainly agree. Of course, if some idiot sponsors a "gun buyback" of
$100 a gun, I'll head down to the local pawnshop and buy their cheapest gun
(a .22 derringer for $69?) and let the idiots "buy it back" from me for
$100. Sounds to me like a practical problem (separating idiots from their
money while supporting firearms ownership) overcome by the seller (me).

>I recognize that where there is a vacuum of guns, some sellers will try to
>fill that vacuum. Do you suppose that captains of ships loaded with guns
>could be persuaded with enough cash to change their next port of call?
>Airplanes might be another story, but it's very expensive to haul very
heavy
>weapons and ammunition around in planes.

Probably. But then you'd probably have better luck with more traditional
methods, like, you know, boarding and searching the ships and confiscating
the ones carrying contraband, etc. Not that they would be that effective,
mind you, just more effective (and vastly cheaper) than your method.

>I've offered my suggestion for two reasons: I think it takes the moral
high
>ground; I believe that it is morally superior to shoot people with words
and
>dollar bills over shooting them with guns and bombs. The other reason is
>that I believe that it would be much less costly to buy rather than bomb,
>assuming that we agree on some reasons to do either.

Fine. If it works and is cheaper (even over the long run), I'm all for it.

>When I worked these ideas out, my models were revolutions such as those in
>Central America and Haiti; I think Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq might fit
now.

Actually, this method was used in Afghanistan in a few places. I suspect
that there might be a few ways it could be put to use in Iraq, "if you
surrender the weapons your government issued you, we will pay you
$XXX). You've got 8 hours to decide. By then we will have a tank column
here and if you haven't surrendered, we'll blast you apart." Of course,
the chances of that kind of communication being possible are almost
nil. Rather, it's more likely that when the tanks come piling over the
hill and start shooting, a bunch of people raise white flags and start
waving them like mad.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: liberty & Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2002 23:25:54 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 8/3/02 5:35 PM, G Triest at garyonthenet@yahoo.com wrote:

> Zev:

> You are essentially saying that there is not place on earth that you are
not
> subject to the laws of the United States.
>

well, g.t., zev has made a pretty good case that that is the way "things
are". it's hard to disagree with that, i figure. the helluva it is, though
i've noticed many contradictions, zev seems to think that the way things are
are they way they ought to be.

bullshit, from his first communication about lindh.

as with zev, i have limited agreement with frank. the u.s. is an
imperialistic power, destined to go the way of rome, with no change in
course. u.s. foreign policy has *nothing* to do with promoting liberty.

so, i agree with the bunch of ya, for different reasons, in part. and i
think the bunch of ya are full of it.

larry

liberty, not soverignity and jurisdiction is our guide. i figure there ain't
too many philosophical anarchist in the group, eh?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: i don't give a f--- about countries.....
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 00:00:07 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

and i don't give a f--- about their jursdictions.

arguing countries and their jurisdiction is granting sanction with the
argument.

none of 'em have it, least of all the 'house of saud', and the u.s.

soveriginty doesn't count for squat, and neither do "countries", whatever
the hell they are.

only liberty counts.

simplistically,

larry f.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: 04 Aug 2002 12:22:58 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 07:54, Robert Goodman wrote:
> Frank wrote in small part:
>
> >Anyway, this is mousemilking rhetoric. Point is, the US has no
> >moral authority or moral right to change any government on the face
> >of the earth. The current government in Afghanistan today is a
> >direct product of US imperialistic aggression pure and simple. That
> >government has no will of the Afghan people, and as such, is immoral
> >and illegitimate.
>
> How do you determine "will of the Afghan people"? I'm sure it reflects
the
> will of SOME Afghan people. And what has any of that to do with morality
or
> legitimacy?

Robert, does anybody invest their will in something that was created
without their consent or involvement? How likely are any of our puppet
governments around the world to survive if we pulled out our troops
tomorrow?

Whether the people wanted the puppet government established, or prefer
it over the previous situation is irrelevant. They didn't create it,
didn't have any real hand in it, and so it will fail, because their will
is not invested. Even if it were, they don't have the tools to maintain
it themselves.

If it were a home-grown revolution, they might have some chance, but I
fear that we have, once again, helped the chick out of the egg just to
watch it die when it has to survive on its own strength.

> My judgement of morality and legitimacy is based on what people DO, not on
> the basis of WHO SAYS SO.

And history (it must be so fatigued with this game by now) will prove
once again that this pattern is illegitimate and will not work.

Daniel Fackrell

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:32:17 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

JS = Joe Sobran
ZS = Zev Sero <zsero@free-market.net>
FR = Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

FR> Zev Sero wrote to Joe Sobran...

I didn't write to him, since I don't know his email address, and I'm
sure he isn't a libnw subscriber. I responded to his column which was
posted on the list.

JS> Just as I consider I have the right to defend my country from attack,
JS> I consider that Lindh had the right to defend his adopted country.

ZS> Even stipulating Sobran's premise, how does fighting for the Taliban
ZS> insurrection equal defending Afghanistan? If Lindh wasn't committing
ZS> treason against the USA, then he must have been committing treason
ZS> against Afghanistan, no?

FR> To make my only point here, is that the government of Afghanistan
FR> (prior to 9/11) was the Taliban government,

Why do you say that? In the view of the USA (which is the only view
that counts in USAn courts), and of the Afghan govt, and of pretty
much every other govt in the world, the Taliban were nothing but a
band of rebels who briefly took control of 80% of the country, before
being beaten back by the legitimate govt, with aid from the Western
military forces.

> Lindh cold hardly be accused of treason against Afghanistan. That
> would be, as I understand it anyway, the post 9/11 Afghan government,

No, he couldn't be accused of fighting against that govt, since it
wasn't established until after he was captured. But throughout the time
that Lindh was fighting for the Taliban, almost every govt in the world
regarded the Northern Alliance as the Afghan govt. Now I'm no great fan
of deciding things by what `almost every govt in the world' says, but
that does seem to be the way that Sobran et al decide these things, and
in this case I don't know why we should agree that all those govts were
wrong (except perhaps on the principle that govts should always be
assumed to be wrong...), and that the Taliban were the legit govt.

FR> Your use of terms, e.g.: Taliban Insurrection, is also questionable.
FR> Lets face it, the Taliban WAS the Afghan government for better of
FR> worse.

In whose eyes? Not those of pretty much anyone outside the areas that
they controlled.

FR> I'm not defending it by any stretch, but your use of the term
FR> "insurrection" is inappropriate in my judgement, since it was
FR> fighting mainly a foreign hostile aggressive force, namely, the
FR> U.S. government.

No, they were fighting the Northern Alliance, which was what remained
of the last internationally recognised govt of Afghanistan.

FR> I would have been far more sympathetic to your descriptions here,
FR> if the US government had declared war against Afghanistan. We did
FR> NOT! We still haven't.

Why would we want to do that, considering that we were in fact *helping*
the forces of the Afghan govt retake their country from the Taliban
insurrection? (Though as a condition of our help we required that govt
to consent to being replaced by a more inclusive regime.)

FR> Point is, the US has no moral authority or moral right to change any
FR> government on the face of the earth.

Why not? Even if the Taliban were to be recognised as the Afghan govt,
we are at war with al-Qaeda, and the Taliban allied themselves with our
enemies, which automatically put them at war with us. And even if none
of that where true, what moral principle says that the USA (or anyone
else of good will) may not overthrow an odious regime, anywhere in the
world? Why must tyrants be allowed to prosper, simply because they
control a piece of territory and call themselves a government?

The real question should be whether a govt is so bad that it deserves
to be overthrown, and whether the replacement is significantly better,
or in fact worse. If a demonstrably bad govt is replaced with a better
one, making the people under its control significantly more free, then
it is a good thing no matter who does it; but if a govt is replaced by
something worse, then it's a bad thing even if the forces that achieve
the change are home-grown rather than foreign. Why is it better to be
ruled by a home-grown tyrant than by a foreign one?

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot (fwd)
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:37:44 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>> >Anyway, this is mousemilking rhetoric. Point is, the US has
>>no >moral authority or moral right to change any government on
>>the face >of the earth. The current government in Afghanistan
>>today is a >direct product of US imperialistic aggression pure
>>and simple. That >government has no will of the Afghan people,
>>and as such, is immoral >and illegitimate.

>> How do you determine "will of the Afghan people"? I'm sure it
>>reflects the will of SOME Afghan people. And what has any of
>>that to do with morality or legitimacy?

>Robert, does anybody invest their will in something that was created
>without their consent or involvement?

Sure, if they like it after the fact. I've climbed on board lots of trains
that got going originally without my knowledge, let alone consent or
involvement.

>How likely are any of our
>puppet governments around the world to survive if we pulled out our
>troops tomorrow?

Depends on many factors.

>Whether the people wanted the puppet government established, or
>prefer it over the previous situation is irrelevant. They didn't
>create it, didn't have any real hand in it, and so it will fail,
>because their will is not invested. Even if it were, they don't
>have the tools to maintain it themselves.

>If it were a home-grown revolution, they might have some chance,
>but I fear that we have, once again, helped the chick out of the
>egg just to watch it die when it has to survive on its own strength.

What if one person wants to maintain it and everyone else doesn't?

>> My judgement of morality and legitimacy is based on what people
>>DO, not on the basis of WHO SAYS SO.

>And history (it must be so fatigued with this game by now) will
>prove once again that this pattern is illegitimate and will not
>work.
>Daniel Fackrell

That still doesn't answer any of the questions I asked in response to Frank.
All you did is make predictions. You haven't shown me that anything like
"will of the...people" is even a meaningful concept, let alone how to
determine it, or what the popularity of an institution or course of action
has to do with its morality or legitimacy.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:56:49 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:56:51 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:57:44 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

EF = Ed Fischang
ZS = Zev Sero
GT = G Triest <garyonthenet@yahoo.com> wrote:

EF> So, if you're vacationing in Mexico and your aspirin hunt leads you
EF> to discover that amphetamines are sold over the counter, your two-week
EF> speed binge (and subsequent 20 lb. weight loss) leaves you liable for
EF> prosecution when you return to the US?

ZS> In theory, yes. In practise, it's not going to happen, so don't worry
ZS> about it. They've got enough peaceful drug users to per^H^Hrosecute in
ZS> this country, without worrying about what happens overseas.

GT> "In theory yes" "but never in practice"
GT> This assurance doesn't cut it for me. Once there is a theoretical
GT> legal avenue for an agency to assert control, you can be sure it is
GT> just a matter of time before they start doing it.

Why would they want to? As I said, they've got enough on their hands
per^H^Hrosecuting drug users in the USA. In any case, as Rob Goodman
informed us, the laws against drug use don't (at present) extend outside
USAn boundaries, so Mexican amphetemine users can rest easy.

There are a lot of very good reasons why the USA doesn't enforce most
of its laws outside its borders, and why it very very very rarely
goes into foreign countries to arrest people (in fact I don't know the
last time it did so without the tacit or explicit consent of that
country's govt). So unless you're planning to do something that's
going to really piss the USA off, such as torturing a federal agent
to death, your chances of being punished by the USA for something that
you did overseas are less than those of being hit by a meteorite, and
far too small to be worth worrying about. Spend your worrying time on
more likely problems, like being arrested by the local police for not
paying enough bribes.

GT> You are essentially saying that there is not place on earth that you
GT> are not subject to the laws of the United States.

Yes, that is the case. There is nowhere in the universe where you can
torture a federal agent to death, and not worry about being arrested by
the USA. I think that's a good thing. There is also nowhere in the
universe where you can make a peaceful business deal in violation of
USAn antitrust law, and then be able to set foot in the USA without
being arrested. I think that's a bad thing, but not much worse than
the fact that you can't do so inside the USA. At least if you're
outside the USA when you do it, and you have no assets in the USA,
you can ignore the USAn law enforcement by simply not going there;
businessmen in the USA, or who have assets in the USA that can be
seized, have no such refuge.

Oh, and BTW, the EU enforces its competition law the same way, so there
are people in Europe who can't the USA, and people in the USA who have
to stay out of Europe...

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:37:49 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote in part:

>There are a lot of very good reasons why the USA doesn't enforce
>most of its laws outside its borders, and why it very very very
>rarely goes into foreign countries to arrest people (in fact I
>don't know the last time it did so without the tacit or explicit
>consent of that country's govt).

I think that'd be Manuel Noriega, and incidentally it was for violation of
the US drug law provision that asserts extraterritoriality: conspiracy to
import drugs illegally into the USA.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 19:10:30 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:
> zev.sero@encodasystems.com wrote in part:

>> There are a lot of very good reasons why the USA doesn't enforce
>> most of its laws outside its borders, and why it very very very
>> rarely goes into foreign countries to arrest people (in fact I
>> don't know the last time it did so without the tacit or explicit
>> consent of that country's govt).

> I think that'd be Manuel Noriega

That's a special case - as far as international law was concerned,
the USA had every right to invade Panama, because Panama had declared
war on the USA. And I don't believe that the purpose of the invasion
was to arrest Noriega on drug charges; I believe that the invasion was
ordered for other reasons (e.g. because of the declaration of war, and
the attacks by Panamanian forces against USAn soldiers that followed),
but that once they were there, and had captured Noriega, the drug charges
were a convenient and legally sound (from the POV of USAn law, at any
rate) way to hang on to him and install a more amenable regime.

So let me modify my original comment: I don't know of a case where USA
went into a foreign country (which was not at the time under US military
invasion or occupation), and arrested someone for a violation of USAn law,
without at least tacit consent from that country's govt.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: liberty & Lindh's Pragmatic Choice
Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 09:53:50 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote in part:

>liberty, not soverignity and jurisdiction is our guide. i figure
>there ain't too many philosophical anarchist in the group, eh?

I'm not sure about that, but I agree completely with your "I don't give a
f--- about countries" message and your first sentence above. However, I
also take pragmatic considerations into account, separately, when they come
up.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 21:39:11 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 20:29 08/03/02 -0400, you wrote:
>Lowell:
>
>Well I would be skeptical of it working if it relies on a regular insurance
>agency to underwrite.
>The whole idea is that it is a nonprofit based plan. I don't think there is
>room for profit in it if it is to be successful.

And I would be skeptical of it working if it does not rely on a regular
insurance agency to underwrite. I know that Bill Anderson likes to say
that "Professionals built the Titanic and Amateurs built the Ark." (Of
course, this leaves out the fact that the "ultimate professional" was the
designer for the Ark--assuming, of course that you even believe the story
in the first place.) The fact remains that there's an awful lot of stuff
that goes into the insurance business (especially health insurance) and for
a group of amateurs to come in and put something together that can beat
what the companies have been doing is improbable, to say the least.

>Has this idea been tried in the courts under the 'right to political
>persuasion' guarantee? I admit it is a new one but the courts may think it
>less sweeping in scope and therefore less controversial.
>If the mandates and findings of Congress that underly the statues that
>permit/enact the taxes for national health and retirement insurance (social
>security, medicare/caid, etc) are substantively fullfilled by our insurance
>plan, then as a precept the person choosing it over the public plan is
still
>operating within the law; as it would/could be argued before a federal
>court.

The reason I pointed out the failure to obtain protection based on 1st
Amendment religious freedom is that religious freedom is protected much
better than political freedom. If you can't do something based on
religious freedom, then you can be absolutely certain that you can't do it
based on political freedom. Up until just recently, clergy were exempt
from Social Security (if they had their own plan). This was based, at
least in part, on concerns that Social Security might infringe on religious
freedom. The only other people were congresscritters, federal workers, and
some state workers (who all had better plans). Ain't no way any political
party would be able to exempt its members. Some other examples would be
religious contributions (unlimited and at least partially tax deductible)
vs. political contributions (limited and not tax deductible). Heck, there
are even religious exemptions to the SWOD (e.g. peyote), but how far do you
think the "Hemp party" will get arguing any sort of "political persuasion"
to legalize even non-intoxicating uses of "bad substances"?

>(splain the free rider problem, and why the rates could not be based on
>acturial tables?)

The rates *could* be based on actuarial tables. However, in a political
party, the chances of that occurring (and remaining so for any significant
period of time) are somewhere between slim and none. The free rider
problem comes from those people with health problems and pre-existing
conditions who know going in they will need treatment far more expensive
than all premiums they could possibly pay. So, libertarian or not, they
join the LP to get the good deal. Meanwhile, LP members (like myself) who
already have decent insurance from a reputable company will stay the heck
away from something that looks like an unsound proposition that will
probably collapse just as we need it.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
>To: <libnw@immosys.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:44 PM
>Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
>
>
> > Gary Triest wrote:
> > >I always thought that it would be a great idea, and party membership
> > >incentive, to offer health and legal insurance to LP members via a
> > >non-profit insurance plan.
> >
> > Not a bad idea, so far. But most likely you'd need to have a "real
> > insurance company" do it--especially the health insurance. Otherwise,
you
> > won't have a big enough base to handle claims. You'd also run into the
> > "free-rider" problem. Finally, you'd probably have the rates set
> > politically rather than actuarially (a $64 word that essentially means
> > "based on cost").
> >
> > >Elilibility would be first based on LP membership and/or Libertarian
>voter
> > >registration as prerequisites.
> > >It could then perhaps be used to voluntarily exclude oneself from
several
> > >involuntary government taxes that purport to supply the same services;
if
> > >and when there is an official objection to such elective services
>transfer I
> > >believe an argument in court could be raised that this is a political
>creed,
> > >belief system and protected right under the 5th and 14th Amendments and
>that
> > >such right imparts the choice to participate in another but equally
>socially
> > >responsible insurance plan, and trumps such other laws imposed by
>Congress.
> >
> > Rots o' ruck. There are some organizations trying to do this based on
1st
> > Amendment religious freedom rights (which are actually better-protected
by
> > the courts). What they are winning isn't enough to be worth the
trouble.
> >
> > >Said insurance would protect LP members health care costs and from
legal
> > >costs (provisionally say only for crimes that the LP does not consider
to
>be
> > >real offenses).
> >
> > So, instead of paying for your attorney before you go to jail, you now
get
> > someone else to pay your attorney before you go to jail. What a
deal...I
> > guess.
> >
> > >Just an idea, but one I believe woudd/could swell the ranks of the LP
>party
> > >and registered Libertarian voters, as well as enhance our income to
> > >something significant and steady from the insurance fund/trust.
> >
> > Perhaps that will equalize the exodus of people who leave the LP because
> > it's "gone off its rocker."
> >
> > >All feedback on this idea is welcome and encouraged . . . .
> >
> > Well, you asked for it.... (But it was a nice try, anyhow.)
> >
> > Lowell C. Savage
> > It's the freedom, stupid!
> > Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> > To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> > To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> > Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> > Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> > URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> > Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> > Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: 06 Aug 2002 00:10:24 -0600
From: Daniel Fackrell <unlearned@learn2think.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Mon, 2002-08-05 at 22:39, Lowell C. Savage wrote:
> At 20:29 08/03/02 -0400, you wrote:
> >Lowell:
> >
> >Well I would be skeptical of it working if it relies on a regular
insurance
> >agency to underwrite.
> >The whole idea is that it is a nonprofit based plan. I don't think there
is
> >room for profit in it if it is to be successful.
>
> And I would be skeptical of it working if it does not rely on a regular
> insurance agency to underwrite. I know that Bill Anderson likes to say
> that "Professionals built the Titanic and Amateurs built the Ark." (Of
> course, this leaves out the fact that the "ultimate professional" was the
> designer for the Ark--assuming, of course that you even believe the story
> in the first place.) The fact remains that there's an awful lot of stuff
> that goes into the insurance business (especially health insurance) and
for
> a group of amateurs to come in and put something together that can beat
> what the companies have been doing is improbable, to say the least.
>
> >Has this idea been tried in the courts under the 'right to political
> >persuasion' guarantee? I admit it is a new one but the courts may think
it
> >less sweeping in scope and therefore less controversial.
> >If the mandates and findings of Congress that underly the statues that
> >permit/enact the taxes for national health and retirement insurance
(social
> >security, medicare/caid, etc) are substantively fullfilled by our
insurance
> >plan, then as a precept the person choosing it over the public plan is
still
> >operating within the law; as it would/could be argued before a federal
> >court.
>
> The reason I pointed out the failure to obtain protection based on 1st
> Amendment religious freedom is that religious freedom is protected much
> better than political freedom. If you can't do something based on
> religious freedom, then you can be absolutely certain that you can't do it
> based on political freedom. Up until just recently, clergy were exempt
> from Social Security (if they had their own plan). This was based, at
> least in part, on concerns that Social Security might infringe on
religious
> freedom. The only other people were congresscritters, federal workers,
and
> some state workers (who all had better plans). Ain't no way any political
> party would be able to exempt its members. Some other examples would be
> religious contributions (unlimited and at least partially tax deductible)
> vs. political contributions (limited and not tax deductible). Heck, there
> are even religious exemptions to the SWOD (e.g. peyote), but how far do
you
> think the "Hemp party" will get arguing any sort of "political persuasion"
> to legalize even non-intoxicating uses of "bad substances"?
>
> >(splain the free rider problem, and why the rates could not be based on
> >acturial tables?)
>
> The rates *could* be based on actuarial tables. However, in a political
> party, the chances of that occurring (and remaining so for any significant
> period of time) are somewhere between slim and none. The free rider
> problem comes from those people with health problems and pre-existing
> conditions who know going in they will need treatment far more expensive
> than all premiums they could possibly pay. So, libertarian or not, they
> join the LP to get the good deal. Meanwhile, LP members (like myself) who
> already have decent insurance from a reputable company will stay the heck
> away from something that looks like an unsound proposition that will
> probably collapse just as we need it.

I wonder if we could find out exactly what the International Order of
Foresters (IOF) does for this. I do know that they offer discount
insurance rates, etc. Perhaps we could learn something from their
setup?

I've only had limited dealings with them, but it seems to me that
they've been around for a while, and probably know a thing or two about
exactly the sort of idea that is being proposed.

Daniel Fackrell

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 22:56:30 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

I'd almost be willing to bet that they work with an insurance
company. Since they are a group, they can negotiate lower rates (in return
for something resembling a one-size-fits-all type of policy.) Also, some
state laws may make it easier for insurance companies to offer insurance
through a "group"--whether that "group" is a union, an employer (or more
precisely, employees) or some group of people brought together by some
activity. My guess is that you'll be far more likely to get something
going for a group that is likely to have healthy members (self-employed,
foresters, bicyclists, etc.) than for a group that could easily have
unhealthy members (cancer survivors, quilting groups, people with the last
name "Smith", members of a political party, etc.) Of course, there are
going to be exceptions. For instance, there is AAL (Aid Association for
Lutherans) which recently merged with Lutheran Brotherhood. (I have
disability insurance through AAL. But they don't offer health insurance in
WA.) Which reminds me, G. Triest was insisting that the insurance had to
be "non-profit" in order to "work". Well, my understanding is that AAL is
a "mutual" insurance company which means that the "customers" are the
"stockholders" in a way similar to Credit Unions and such.

I'd prefer to see the LP push for laws that make more of these kinds of
organizations available rather than try to compete.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

>I wonder if we could find out exactly what the International Order of
>Foresters (IOF) does for this. I do know that they offer discount
>insurance rates, etc. Perhaps we could learn something from their
>setup?
>
>I've only had limited dealings with them, but it seems to me that
>they've been around for a while, and probably know a thing or two about
>exactly the sort of idea that is being proposed.
>
>Daniel Fackrell

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:36:49 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>Bill Anderson
>likes to say that "Professionals built the Titanic and Amateurs
>built the Ark." (Of course, this leaves out the fact that the
>"ultimate professional" was the designer for the Ark

God did it for money?!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 14:48:58 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 11:36 08/06/02 -0500, you wrote:
> >Bill Anderson
> >likes to say that "Professionals built the Titanic and Amateurs
> >built the Ark." (Of course, this leaves out the fact that the
> >"ultimate professional" was the designer for the Ark
>
>God did it for money?!

Ya got me! :-)

Seriously though, are doctors and dentists who donate their time and effort
(and sometimes medicines and supplies) any less "professional" because they
aren't being paid? What about attorneys who take cases "pro bono?" Or
architects or engineers who donate time, effort and expense to assist some
non-profit organization in designing some structure? I could go on with
other "professions", but you get the idea.

In all of these cases (and the first one, mentioned above), they are just
as "professional" (if not more).

Now, perhaps the LP could gather together a group of professionals to run
"Libertarian Insurance" that would have all the skills necessary to do the
job and they *might* be able to put together something that's better than
the capitalist system has managed to create so far. There would still be
the problem of political interference from the LP and the "free-rider"
problem of sick people joining the LP so they could get the insurance
(which, BTW, would contribute to the political interference, as the
"free-riders" demand changes to benefit themselves at the expense of the
long-term viability of the insurance organization).

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: 07 Aug 2002 16:29:50 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 10:36, Robert Goodman wrote:
<attribution lost>
> >Bill Anderson
> >likes to say that "Professionals built the Titanic and Amateurs
> >built the Ark." (Of course, this leaves out the fact that the
> >"ultimate professional" was the designer for the Ark

Of course, one can design a perfect item, but if the builder makes
mistakes, the design is largely irrelevant. ;^)

>
> God did it for money?!
>

HAHAHAHAHAAAA!!
Thanks, that was a good, needed laugh! :^)

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 21:28:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Gary!

I wanted to answer this one several days ago after you wrote it. As
usual, I've been really tied down working on various projects, and
just didn't get around to it when this issue was more on the front
burner. Nevertheless, my comments...

Gary Triest wrote to Lowell Savage...

> Well I would be skeptical of it working if it relies on a regular
insurance
> agency to underwrite.
> The whole idea is that it is a nonprofit based plan. I don't think there
is
> room for profit in it if it is to be successful.

I would be very sceptical if the Libertarian Party were running it, or
for that matter, any political party or similar organization were in
charge. Most large insurance companies have been around for decades,
and in some cases for a couple hundred years. They've done a very
good job in providing insurance coverage to cover most situations
UNTIL the politicians began to get their meat hooks into the insurance
business.

Many private organizations do offer their members insurance and
investment plans, and they are almost always underwritten by a
professional insurance company, if not several of them. My financial
and brokerage accounts for example are with the Navy Federal Credit
Union, a private financial institution that provides coverage for
active duty and retired Navy and Marine Corp members. But in this
instance, the plans are actually covered under the CUNA Investment
Corporation which works will with NFCU and other such organizations
whether government, or semi-government or private industry. In my
judgement anyway, for a political party to enter into this would be
like recommending me to perform open heart surgery at a reduced cost
for LP of Idaho members. First, I am not a physician, nor surgeon,
and second, the sight of blood sends me to the ceiling. I could
probably submit a competitive bid, but it wouldn't be worth very much
if I couldn't perform the services.

> Has this idea been tried in the courts under the 'right to political
> persuasion' guarantee? I admit it is a new one but the courts may think it
> less sweeping in scope and therefore less controversial.
> If the mandates and findings of Congress that underly the statues that
> permit/enact the taxes for national health and retirement insurance
(social
> security, medicare/caid, etc) are substantively fullfilled by our
insurance
> plan, then as a precept the person choosing it over the public plan is
still
> operating within the law; as it would/could be argued before a federal
> court.

Yea know, I'm not so opposed to the idea of the LP competing with
government plans in both medical and retirement insurance programmes,
so much as I would be concerned about their vitality, and how credible
and professional they might turn out to be. Several religious
institutions also have similar plans, but to my knowledge, no one has
tried to opt out of Medicare or Social Security based upon religious
objection to the government plans. The Lutheran Churches in America
(for example) have two such organizations, Aid Association for
Lutherans (AAL) and Lutheran Brotherhood (LB); both of which offer
competitive retirement, investment and insurance plans that are
superior to those offered under federal government programmes. But
they have been around long enough, and are large and credible enough
to be ran professionally and protect their members.

I am not so sure either that Libertarians could pull of putting such a
package together. Some would argue in favour of a "for profit" plan,
perhaps like a mutual fund of selected insurance providers. Others
might insist on a not for profit plan run by the LP itself. The later
I would suspect might be doomed to failure, since politicians running
any programme seem to blotch up even so-called "good" ideas in favour
of personal gain and empire building (which would invite charges of
corruption and scandal).

And then finally, many would conclude that the LP has no business, as
a political organization, for entering into such arrangements at all
-- smacks of government control over personal choices, etc.

At any rate, it would have to be voluntary, and again I would
encourage the use of professional insurance institutions that know
what the hell they are doing to run it all.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:00:01 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Gary!

Again, my regrets for not getting back into this much sooner.

Gary Triest wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I believe that an external insurance agency underwriting the plan would
> undermine the economic attractiveness of it. The idea is that it would be
a
> non-profit based insurance; the savings would be far more amenable to the
LP
> members' enrollment.
> I don't think the LP would itself minister the plan, but rather an
> affiliated non-profit corporation, an offshoot of the LP that has
> independent legal status.

That sounds much better, and of course more elaboration would be in
order to clarify the fine points on how it would all work. The LP, as
an organization, really isn't very large however, in terms of possible
clientele. You would still need the trained professionals who could
put it all together and administer it, and without a profit! That's
usually where the edges of "scandal" and "corruption" always enter the
picture (note the current controversies surrounding the Red Cross, and
contributions to the 9/11 fund disbursements! That's supposed to be
non-profit as well, and now we hear all kinds of allegations of
improprieties and skimming of funds by local ARC Chapters!

All I am saying is that when huge sums of money are in the basket,
there is always the temptation to skim off the top, particularly when
it isn't run as a corporate facility where checks are put into place
to help insure integrity. Even as it is, we've seen charges being
made in the LP itself on campaigns, such as the Harry Browne for
President campaigns.

> I too believe in personal choice on even whether a person should have to
> participate in any insurance plan. But as it sits there are gunenforced
laws
> that demand you pay into the national insurance plan. I am proposing that
> since these laws exist, for protected political reasons, a person should
be
> legally able to transfer his legal obligation to investing into the public
> plan to this subject private plan.

Okay, I covered that a moment ago in a previous post on this subject
to you. The Lutheran Church and other religious bodies also have
private investment, retirement, and insurance programmes, but to my
knowledge no one has been able to claim religious discrimination for
having to still support the same old tired worn out government
programmes that don't work half as well! It would seem to me that the
argument about separation of church and state ought to be a huge
argument in favour of someone opting out of the government programmes
for similar or better programmes sponsored by religious organizations,
based upon the separation of church and state. I do not see the same
compelling argument as a utilitarian alternative in terms of political
preferences. If you could come up with one, I would like to hear
about it.

On the contrary, the Quakers and other religious groups who do not for
religious reasons participate within political constraints, have won
some of their battles, such as driving horse drawn carriages on public
highways, and not being subject to building codes and other government
mandates for religious reasons! I just haven't seen the same thing
applied to government political descent, at least in a similar way.
It would boil down largely to something along the lines of the "Free
State Project", that is, taking over a state government, then slowly
withdrawing from the federal mandates and unconstitutional government
power. Again, it might work, but to do that would take more political
clout than what we have right now.

> It could be made viable by a number of means . . . perhaps a start up
stock
> offering, perhaps via a grant from a non-profit organization (since this
> plan is intended to be non-profit itself), perhaps from some group of
> sympathetic benefactors.

Okay, but as you admit, the incentive would be that those
participating could opt out of the federal programmes. I consider
that this would be rather difficult in view of the fact that even
religious groups haven't yet been able to pull off such a shift in
terms of legality, and I believe their case is much stronger in this
case than that of a political party. I simply see "the free exercise
of religion" argument as a much stronger one, than one political party
choosing to opt out of a government insurance programme.

> The main problem in starting it up would be the main fund to protect the
> policy holders in a worst case scenario of 30% of them taking more out of
> the fund than it was able to accumulate.
> Although I recognize the devil may be in the details here, my main thrust
> (and point of interest) was in offering such a health/legal/(mebe
> retirement) plan only to registered Libertarians.

Again, religious groups already have several such plans in place.
Both AAL and LB are open only to Lutherans for example. It would be a
quantum leap to go from that to opting out of a government insurance
plan. But again, I believe that would be a stronger argument than for
a political party to attempt to do so. I may be wrong, but
constitutionally, I do not see the same degree of separation being
mandated for political beliefs, and is the case for religious beliefs,
practices, and expression. In fact, the Constitution and Bill of
Rights to my knowledge doesn't really cover political factions as a
separate issue at all.

> I do think that the details can be worked out, as it is based on the same
> precepts as any other insurance plan, which are mostly all economically
> viable.

If that argument could be used, it would have already made it into the
courts by this time. Almost all major insurance plans are and always
have been far superior to the government Medicare and SS plans, and
yet virtually everyone is still forced to pay into and support the
government programmes.

I believe that a legal case could possibly be made to support
privatizing such plans, as Harry Browne advocated, and make them
voluntary, that is, if it could reasonably be shown that the social
net is being covered by a private sector choice. If that argument
doesn't fly, even though it is reasonable and acceptable as a viable
alternative to the existing forced plans imposed by the federal
government, then it would be less attractive for the LP to even
support such a plan for bonified Libertarian members. To make the LP
plan attractive, the forced coercion for the government's programmes
would have to be removed somehow, and I sadly doubt if any court would
provide an avenue for any such case to prevail.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Libertarian Insurance
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 22:22:25 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Bill Anderson...

> Now, perhaps the LP could gather together a group of professionals to run
> "Libertarian Insurance" that would have all the skills necessary to do the
> job and they *might* be able to put together something that's better than
> the capitalist system has managed to create so far. There would still be
> the problem of political interference from the LP and the "free-rider"
> problem of sick people joining the LP so they could get the insurance
> (which, BTW, would contribute to the political interference, as the
> "free-riders" demand changes to benefit themselves at the expense of the
> long-term viability of the insurance organization).

Now you are beginning to see some of the real world realities that I
was trying to touch on here. However, the main problem in even
getting such a scheme off the ground at all, would be the incentive to
offer a programme that would satisfy all of the government's demands
to be removed from the compulsory insurance programmes run by the
federal government, such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security
(but there are others as well, such as military and civil service
retirement plans).

The core issue here is that all of the government programmes are
really nothing more than "welfare programmes" that all are made to
participate in. They aren't really insurance programmes at all.

You raised an important issue, in that people would quickly join the
LP to avail themselves of subsidized programmes already being paid by
bonified members. If they couldn't join, let's say, because they
refuse to subscribe to the "oath" or "pledge", then we could expect a
court challenge for discrimination.

A decade or so ago, the John Birch Society, and various other think
tanks did a study on medical insurance. The study's conclusion at that
time was that approximately 90 percent of all Americans were
completely satisfied by their existing private sector insurance and
medical plans. This left approximately less than 10 percent of the
population who had "concerns" over their medical coverage at that
time.

Of course now that the politicians have become involved, we have HMOs
and other strange and mandatory frameworks, and a greater number of
Americans are no longer satisfied either with their existing coverage,
or their medical system in which they fall under.

I'm not so sure an LP insurance alternative would really address much
of this, other than our standard ideal of a completely voluntary
participation in a programme of our own choice. Which is what we had
a decade or so ago, and the direction seems to be moving rapidly into
the arena of even more political interference rather than less.

As I speak, a campaign is heating up now to go after the Fast Food
Industry, the industry that provides those wonderful cheeseburgers and
fries that we all love to eat. We no longer have choices, and
personal responsibility to either live our lives in a healthy manner,
or take care of our own medical, insurance, and retirement
necessities. Indeed, this is a sad commentary of our time. And, for
libertarians, let's face it, it is an uphill battle to be sure.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: stan smith, address confused in my my mind, airing dirty
launrdy.....
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 01:57:50 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Subject: hey, stan, what's up?????

stan smith wrote many others responding to ted:

on 8/5/02 10:24 AM, Stan Smith at Parkside@icehouse.net wrote:

> Dear Ted,
>
> At our Kootenai County Executive meeting on August 1, 2002, it was
> unanimously agreed that this meeting was necessary,

: really, you say, stan. and just why did K. county belive this meeting was
necessary? as important as it seems to you folks, you didn't list the
reasons. how come? what are the bees in you bonnets?

is this about ryan, stan? i have a private communication from kevin i'll
send the public if it is?

is this about money? i figure it is. raiding the treasury when there is so
little there. there's a proposal to split it 4 ways - 1/4 to each region,
and 1/4 to the state lp. we oughta be able to agree about that over the
phone, unamously, unless there's a sick power play going on, and i figure
there is.

why is it you K. county folks remind me sooooo much of the government?

put my mind at ease, stan, or at least have the guts to state the reasons
this meeting "is necessary", in 'your' view!

what the f--- are your reasons, stan, and you K. county folks? speak
plainly, please. or are you just a conspiracy trying to get your way, no
reason justify it?

speak up stan, or, as the newly selected central-committee man from bannock
county, i'm gonna want to hear what the fuck is going on over the
speakerphone!! and i will be real pissed if i have to wait 'till then and
hear bullshit.

speak up!!!!!!

what's up with you all up north?????

larry fullmer

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: stan smith, address confused in my my mind, airing dirtylaunrdy.....
Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 00:22:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <moderator@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Stan Smith...

Stan Smith wrote:
> > At our Kootenai County Executive meeting on August 1, 2002, it was
> > unanimously agreed that this meeting was necessary,

You replied:
> : really, you say, stan. and just why did K. county belive this meeting
was
> necessary? as important as it seems to you folks, you didn't list the
> reasons. how come? what are the bees in you bonnets?
> is this about ryan, stan? i have a private communication from kevin i'll
> send the public if it is?

I have to wonder just how pertinent to Liberty Northwest, this really
is? This appears to be another jab within the confines of Idaho Libs
politics, and has little relevance to Liberty Northwest. This
conversation obviously ought to be confined to what takes place in
Idaho Libertarian circles.

You continued:
> is this about money? i figure it is. raiding the treasury when there is
so
> little there. there's a proposal to split it 4 ways - 1/4 to each region,
> and 1/4 to the state lp. we oughta be able to agree about that over the
> phone, unamously, unless there's a sick power play going on, and i figure
> there is.
> why is it you K. county folks remind me sooooo much of the government?

Well again, if this is Idaho politics, then perhaps its relevance if
any, needs to be directed toward Idaho_Libs and NOT Liberty
Northwest. That is, unless you can find a way to make this
conversation meaningful in the overall context of larger national
topics.

To put this into some kind of perspective:

> what's up with you all up north?????

Up "north" of where? Liberty Northwest is a global discussion group,
and this conversation obviously has little to do with discussing
topics that have a Libertarian relevance, now doesn't it? If you're
talking about the "North Pole", perhaps. Otherwise, I doubt this has
much significance for further discussion here.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 19:43:16 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Since our shift to immosys.com, we are no longer capable of receiving
LP press releases. However, I have other group platforms still on the
Yahoogroups circuit, and I still get the press releases elsewhere. So
I am posting this very important one tonight from LP national,
concerning the Shrub Regime's<tm> insatiable desire to get the US
government involved in yet another foreign war, and international
adventurism -- the upcoming invasion of Iraq!

One has to wonder these days who the international war criminals
really are. Not justifying the atrocities of Saddam Hussein,
nevertheless, he does not have the power at his disposal to wage wars
anywhere on the planet in an effort to build US hegemony over third
world countries. The Shrub Regime<tm> apparently believes that
superior US military power can be translated into moral justification.

I can't believe this insanity continues to engender wide support from
the American people! We have absolutely nothing whatsoever to gain
from an attack upon Iraq, nor from the removal of Sadman Hussein. The
US is in no way threatened by Hussein, nor by Iraq. This is yet
another classic case of sheer arrogance and abuse of power. It is
also blatant aggression on the part of the US government. Under just
such similar circumstances, other nations have been labelled as rogue
states. No wonder the Shrub Regime<tm> doesn't want to sign on to the
International Court of Justice and be placed under international
scrutiny

So, as this insanity unfolds yet again, here is the latest LP Press
Release. Most of you will find that the LP is a little more mild in
its condemnation of US abuse than I am. I find this outrage totally
reprehensible!

Kindest regards,
Frank

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: August 8, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Bush's plan to launch invasion of Iraq
is totally unjustified, Libertarians say

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's unfolding plan to invade Iraq is
totally unjustified, Libertarians say, because that nation poses no
direct threat to the United States.

"Before the president risks the life of even one American soldier, he
needs a reason, not an excuse," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party
executive director. "Unless the United States is at risk of an Iraqi
military attack, Bush's proposal to invade that nation should be
denounced for what it is: reckless foreign interventionism."

Yet a full-blown war against Iraq appears inevitable, according to
administration sources, after reports on Wednesday that all of Bush's
top national security advisors agree on the need to topple the Iraqi
dictator. The most likely scenario involves using 200,000 U.S. ground,
air, and naval troops to invade Iraq as early as the winter of 2003.

But one crucial fact has been ignored in the debate, Libertarians say:
Saddam has not committed an act of aggression against the United
States.

"Wars that are not defensive are merely acts of aggression against
sovereign nations," Dasbach said. "And wars that are launched by
presidents, rather than formally declared by Congress as the
Constitution requires, are illegal."

Moreover, while the U.S. government has made vague claims that the
Iraqi regime has terrorist links, it has produced no public evidence
specifically linking Saddam to the September 11 attacks, Dasbach
pointed out.

"Since Bush has no legitimate reason for waging war on Iraq, he has
cobbled together a list of accusations, none of which provide
sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation and risking
American lives," he said. For example, Bush claims that:

* Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. "True enough, but there are
dozens of ruthless dictators around the globe, starting with Fidel
Castro; the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; the Chinese
communists; and various tyrants sprinkled throughout Africa, Asia, and
Latin America," Dasbach said. "Is Bush going to send troops to topple
them all?"

According to Freedom House, an organization that tracks the status of
democracy around the world, only 120 of the world's 192 nations are
electoral democracies, Dasbach noted. "So unless Mr. Bush plans to
launch strikes on the 72 other captive nations, he owes the American
people an explanation as to why they should fear Iraq more than other
despotic regimes," Dasbach said.

* Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. "According to the Pentagon,
12 countries have nuclear weapons programs, 13 have biological
weapons,
16 have chemical weapons and 28 have ballistic missiles," Dasbach
said. "So what makes Saddam's chemical weapons more menacing than,
say, Pakistan's nuclear bomb?

* Saddam supports terrorism. "According to the State Department's
official list of terrorist sponsors, 45 nations have active al Qaeda
cells," Dasbach said. "So even if terrorists are operating inside
Iraq, that in itself makes Iraq no more of a threat to the United
States than Malaysia, Somalia, or the Philippines."

The bottom line is that Bush's wide-ranging indictment against Saddam
Hussein is missing one key element: proof that Iraq poses a direct
threat to the United States, Dasbach said.

"Instead of struggling to find a justification for war, Mr. Bush
should be looking for a way to avoid war – and avoid the needless loss
of American lives that could result."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:47:56 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

My how the mighty have fallen. This press release most definitely is NOT
up to the former standards of LP press releases.

There may be some good reasons for not going to war with Iraq (or more
precisely, finishing the old one), but this press release doesn't mention
them. It consists mainly of strawman arguments--the major one being that
it addresses separately each piece of the total argument for going after
Iraq without even acknowledging that the main reason for going after Iraq
is the combination of those pieces into a whole. It might be legitimate to
argue (which the LP does attempt in a couple of cases) against each piece
by claiming it isn't true. However, the main argument against each piece
is that: Since H does X, and we are going after H, we should go after
everyone else who does X. Of course, we are going after H because he's the
main guy doing X, and Y, and Z. Most of the other people doing X aren't
doing Y, or they aren't doing Z, and vice versa.

I've quoted some portions and added my comments below.

>WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's unfolding plan to invade Iraq is
>totally unjustified, Libertarians say, because that nation poses no
>direct threat to the United States.

Let me see. The criteria for attacking another country is that it's
soldiers are at your borders (or crossing them) or that the other country
has been proven to actually have attacked in some way? In other words, we
can attack Iraq after the mushroom cloud (or the chemical or biological
equivalent) has appeared over one or more of our cities? Oh yes, and we
have to establish (in a court of law?) that the weapon originated in the
country we are attacking?

>"Before the president risks the life of even one American soldier, he
>needs a reason, not an excuse," said Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party
>executive director. "Unless the United States is at risk of an Iraqi
>military attack, Bush's proposal to invade that nation should be
>denounced for what it is: reckless foreign interventionism."

How much of a risk? Can the risk only be of a "military attack"? What
about "terrorist attack" (which BTW, is basically what the White House is
claiming.)

>Yet a full-blown war against Iraq appears inevitable, according to
>administration sources, after reports on Wednesday that all of Bush's
>top national security advisors agree on the need to topple the Iraqi
>dictator.

Hmm. We hire the president who, in turn, with Senate confirmation, hires
these advisors to determine exactly what the risk from Iraq is and make
recommendations of what to do about it. While skepticism of elected
leaders is a good thing, the fact that "all ... advisors" agree on
something is actually an argument in favor of that something (even if it is
a weak one.) If, in fact, these advisors have been established as biased
or flawed in some way that would affect this decision, perhaps the LP could
advise us of it instead of apparently just asserting that something is
wrong with them.

>But one crucial fact has been ignored in the debate, Libertarians say:
>Saddam has not committed an act of aggression against the United
>States.

Well, I suppose that in some pinched, constrained definition of "aggression
against the United States" that may be true. However, he did start a
little war over there, got his ass kicked, and then signed a peace treaty
in which he agreed to various things, including, that he would refrain from
building WMD and would allow inspections to verify that he had shut his WMD
programs down. He hasn't kept his part of the bargain and has fired at US
planes enforcing other parts of that agreement (seems kind of like
aggression, there).

Of course, there's one other thing involved, here. If you're "hitting
back", there's nothing that says you can't "hit 'em back first." In other
words, if the other guy is leaning back preparing for a real roundhouse,
you don't have to wait until he start's his forward swing to clock him in
the chin.

>"Wars that are not defensive are merely acts of aggression against
>sovereign nations," Dasbach said. "And wars that are launched by
>presidents, rather than formally declared by Congress as the
>Constitution requires, are illegal."

Finally, something close to a good reason to oppose the action. (Although
I somehow doubt that a formal declaration by Congress would change any
minds at LP headquarters.) Yes, Congress should issue a formal declaration
of war.

Of course, even this doesn't quite cut it as a stalking horse. Congress
did approve the action in 1992 and has never withdrawn its approval or said
that the whole thing was over. The only thing we have is a "ceasefire", of
which, as I've noted above, Iraq has violated the terms. So we are
technically, still at war. We are in a "ceasefire" which can be initiated
by the president (or his delegated representative in the military) and
which can also be ended the same way.

Also, if Congress really wanted to yank the president's chain, it could do
so through its budget power. Congress has shown no desire to do anything
of the sort. While I understand the difference between a positive action
in approval and no action in disapproval, it is still quite clear that
Congress would approve of the action (a few caterwauling members not
withstanding).

>Moreover, while the U.S. government has made vague claims that the
>Iraqi regime has terrorist links, it has produced no public evidence
>specifically linking Saddam to the September 11 attacks, Dasbach
>pointed out.

Hmm. So if Saddam had no links to 9-11, we can't touch him. What level of
terrorist attacks will the US government need to "produce" "public
evidence" of links to in order for Dasbach to decide that war against Iraq
is appropriate? Do we need that mushroom cloud? And, of course, I thought
that Dasbach was claiming earlier that it had to be a "military attack".

>* Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. "True enough, but there are
>dozens of ruthless dictators around the globe, starting with Fidel
>Castro; the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia; the Chinese
>communists; and various tyrants sprinkled throughout Africa, Asia, and
>Latin America," Dasbach said. "Is Bush going to send troops to topple
>them all?"

Hey! There's a good strawman. We're going after H because he's a
R. Therefore, we should go after all the other 'R's. Of course, never
mind that most of the other 'R's are not currently threats to us, while 'H'
is.

>* Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. "According to the Pentagon,
>12 countries have nuclear weapons programs, 13 have biological
>weapons,
>16 have chemical weapons and 28 have ballistic missiles," Dasbach
>said. "So what makes Saddam's chemical weapons more menacing than,
>say, Pakistan's nuclear bomb?

Another strawman. We're going after H because he has W. Therefore we
should go after all the others with W. What makes Saddam's chemical
weapons more menacing than, say, Pakistan's nuke is that Saddam is much
more likely to use his against us.

>* Saddam supports terrorism. "According to the State Department's
>official list of terrorist sponsors, 45 nations have active al Qaeda
>cells," Dasbach said. "So even if terrorists are operating inside
>Iraq, that in itself makes Iraq no more of a threat to the United
>States than Malaysia, Somalia, or the Philippines."

Whee! A real leap of logic! Saddam supports terrorism, therefore we
should go after every other nation that contains an active al Qaeda
cell--regardless of whether that nation supports, opposes or is indifferent
to the terrorists within its borders.

>The bottom line is that Bush's wide-ranging indictment against Saddam
>Hussein is missing one key element: proof that Iraq poses a direct
>threat to the United States, Dasbach said.

The bottom line is that Dasbach's wide-ranging "indictment" against US
policy appears to acknowledge that Iraq really is different (and deserving
of US "attention"). Saddam is "a ruthless dictator" AND has WMD AND
*supports* terrorism AND appears quite willing to do what he can to go
after the US. Nearly every other nation is lacking in one or more of these
characteristics. And once we are done removing Hussein (and I really don't
care who or what is put in his place--although a democratically-elected
government would be a nice bonus) the few other nations that fulfill all
the conditions above will probably be doing what they can to assure us that
they don't fulfill at least one of those conditions.

>"Instead of struggling to find a justification for war, Mr. Bush
>should be looking for a way to avoid war ­ and avoid the needless loss
>of American lives that could result."

Instead of struggling to find a justification for opposing a popular,
legitimate, and sensible policy, the LP should be looking for a way to
support the war - and help avoid the needless loss of American lives that
could result from leaving Saddam in place to strike at America using
terrorists to bring his WMD to our shores.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 11:15:19 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>Instead of struggling to find a justification for opposing a
>popular, legitimate, and sensible policy, the LP should be looking
>for a way to support the war - and help avoid the needless loss of
>American lives that could result from leaving Saddam in place to
>strike at America using terrorists to bring his WMD to our shores.

>Lowell C. Savage

I have a nasty, nagging suspicion that a good portion of LP's national
leadership, involved in the production of that press release, secretly do
think as above, and are playing a cynical game. They'll be satisfied for 2
reasons when the war occurs. First, they'll be relieved that the threat
they secretly agree is there will be removed. Second, because it'll never
be PROVEN that the war was necessary to avoid worse bloodshed, they'll have
something else in the record of the USA gov't to attack -- reinforcing the
dissident status of LP. I have no direct evidence of any of this, of
course.

I, Inert Surly Boy,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 23:20:00 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Lowell Savage...

Lowell C. Savage previously wrote:
> >Instead of struggling to find a justification for opposing a
> >popular, legitimate, and sensible policy, the LP should be looking
> >for a way to support the war - and help avoid the needless loss of
> >American lives that could result from leaving Saddam in place to
> >strike at America using terrorists to bring his WMD to our shores.

You replied:
> I have a nasty, nagging suspicion that a good portion of LP's national
> leadership, involved in the production of that press release, secretly do
> think as above, and are playing a cynical game. They'll be satisfied for
2
> reasons when the war occurs. First, they'll be relieved that the threat
> they secretly agree is there will be removed. Second, because it'll never
> be PROVEN that the war was necessary to avoid worse bloodshed, they'll
have
> something else in the record of the USA gov't to attack -- reinforcing the
> dissident status of LP. I have no direct evidence of any of this, of
> course.

As you might suspect. I find a great deal of difficulty trying to find
ANY way whatsoever, why Libertarians would look for any way to support
any war against Iraq! Your explanation doesn't help very much
either. The US government is hardly anything close to "libertarian",
and the history of US military involvement to promote liberty has been
anything less than stellar! I have no idea why Savage wishes to find
a way to salvage what we are doing as legitimate, nor your explanation
that it will bring about any opportunities for a "libertarian" world
very refreshing!

Ya need to consider some real facts before you plunge along in this
direction. America is one of the most regulated societies on earth for
crying out loud! I can buy "anti-biotics" such as penicillin here in
the Philippines without a prescription!

You know, as well as I do, that I could spend hours writing about all
of this. So what's the use? Quite frankly, America has no moral high
ground for promoting liberty at any level! The US government is one
of the most intrusive, regimented police states on the face of the
planet.

Hopefully, hopefully, the LP will not succumb to your ideal that what
we are doing is morally correct, even using brute force to attain such
goals! God, I hope you are wrong!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 08:42:29 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank!

The quoted paragraph that I wrote was partly in response to (and a
caricature of) a similar paragraph in the LP's release. My other reasons
for saying what I did were that 1) it is a popular policy (which a
political party should be trying to get in front of--if it can possibly
find the philosophical justification for doing so) and 2) that the stuff
they talked about in the press release actually provided support for the
action.

My main point was that if there is a reason to oppose war against Iraq, the
LP release most certainly did not make it. Perhaps you should go back and
respond to the post where I picked apart the LP press release on a
point-by-point basis, instead of responding to a quote of one of the
summary paragraphs near the end.

I also have a few comments below.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

At 23:20 08/11/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Robert!
>
>Robert Goodman wrote to Lowell Savage...
>
>Lowell C. Savage previously wrote:
> > >Instead of struggling to find a justification for opposing a
> > >popular, legitimate, and sensible policy, the LP should be looking
> > >for a way to support the war - and help avoid the needless loss of
> > >American lives that could result from leaving Saddam in place to
> > >strike at America using terrorists to bring his WMD to our shores.
>
>You replied:
> > I have a nasty, nagging suspicion that a good portion of LP's national
> > leadership, involved in the production of that press release, secretly
do
> > think as above, and are playing a cynical game. They'll be satisfied
for 2
> > reasons when the war occurs. First, they'll be relieved that the threat
> > they secretly agree is there will be removed. Second, because it'll
never
> > be PROVEN that the war was necessary to avoid worse bloodshed, they'll
have
> > something else in the record of the USA gov't to attack -- reinforcing
the
> > dissident status of LP. I have no direct evidence of any of this, of
> > course.
>
>As you might suspect. I find a great deal of difficulty trying to find
>ANY way whatsoever, why Libertarians would look for any way to support
>any war against Iraq! Your explanation doesn't help very much
>either. The US government is hardly anything close to "libertarian",
>and the history of US military involvement to promote liberty has been
>anything less than stellar! I have no idea why Savage wishes to find
>a way to salvage what we are doing as legitimate, nor your explanation
>that it will bring about any opportunities for a "libertarian" world
>very refreshing!

Are you saying that the US has to be a perfect "libertarian" society before
it can act in self-defense? And since you are bringing up the "less than
stellar" history, how much "stellar history" does the country need to have
before you believe that it can act in self-defense. In fact, since it
doesn't have a "stellar history" it can't ever act, can it?

>Ya need to consider some real facts before you plunge along in this
>direction. America is one of the most regulated societies on earth for
>crying out loud! I can buy "anti-biotics" such as penicillin here in
>the Philippines without a prescription!

And how easy is it to purchase a 9mm pistol in the Philippines? (Oh,
BTW. Don't tell anyone, but you can go down to any farm store around here
and purchase "anti-biotics" such as penicillin by the jar full--without a
prescription! OK, so it is supposedly only for "animals", but it's the
same stuff.)

>You know, as well as I do, that I could spend hours writing about all
>of this. So what's the use? Quite frankly, America has no moral high
>ground for promoting liberty at any level! The US government is one
>of the most intrusive, regimented police states on the face of the
>planet.

Oh please! The US is the only country that has ever been attacked and
after winning the war, gave up some of its land (hint: you're living there,
Frank). We saved Europe's collective (and collectivist) butt 3 times in
the last century and are possibly in the process of making it 4
times. There's a little island a few hundred miles north of you that has
been holding free elections for the last decade or so (and actually quite a
bit longer), growing economically, and raising their standard of living
under the (albeit somewhat ambiguous) shelter of the US Seventh Fleet.

>Hopefully, hopefully, the LP will not succumb to your ideal that what
>we are doing is morally correct, even using brute force to attain such
>goals! God, I hope you are wrong!

Frank, I can't imagine that you would want to see mushroom clouds over a
major US city before you would think that the US could act in
self-defense. So, before that happens, what sort of evidence of what sort
of activity would make you think that attacking Iraq was legitimate?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:14:04 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in small part:

>Oh please! The US is the only country that has ever been attacked
>and after winning the war, gave up some of its land

No, also Israel.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 16:46:40 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 15:14 08/12/02 -0500, you wrote:
>savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in small part:
>
> >Oh please! The US is the only country that has ever been attacked
> >and after winning the war, gave up some of its land
>
>No, also Israel.

Thank you. You are correct. "Big Satan and Little Satan."

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:38:01 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Robert,

Oops, waitaminite! I take that back. Israel is giving up land that it
conquered in the war. The US gave up land it had held before the war (the
Philippines).

Frank,

As for Britain and France, well, France lost--it just happened to be on the
winning side when all was said and done. Britain came within a
hairsbreadth and would have lost without US support. I suppose I should
have better qualified that as "after ending the war far stronger than it
was when the war began, gave up some of its pre-war land." That would
apply to neither Britain or France. Both were basically exhausted after
WWII.

And as for the Soviet Union. They gave up the land because they
lost. (The Cold war.)

And finally as for the US being an "Imperialist Power", we're a pretty
benign one. Our former enemies are now our friends and allies (albeit
somewhat limp-wristed allies) and not only that, but within about 30-40
years of their defeat at our hands, were enjoying economic wealth almost on
a par with their former conquerer. All of the other "victims" of US
"imperialism" have also done reasonably well--unless, of course, they got
themselves governments that stole from the people or created
government-favored monopolies for well-connected people, or did some other
freedom-robbing thing. (I think we had a discussion on this about a year
or so ago.) The only fault in US policy (if it was one) lay in *not*
intervening more vigorously when one of our "victims of imperialism" was
going wrong.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
At 16:46 08/12/02 -0700, you wrote:
>At 15:14 08/12/02 -0500, you wrote:
>>savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in small part:
>>
>> >Oh please! The US is the only country that has ever been attacked
>> >and after winning the war, gave up some of its land
>>
>>No, also Israel.
>
>Thank you. You are correct. "Big Satan and Little Satan."
>
>Lowell C. Savage
>It's the freedom, stupid!
>Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: popularity of externally applied overthrows
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 17:48:11 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

While we're on the subject of Iraq vis-a-vis popular regimes, it occurs to
me that much of the time it can't reasonably be judged how popular a regime
is among those governed by it. That appears to be the case in Iraq now,
where all dissent is crushed.

There was no way to be sure in advance, but Grenadans overwhelmingly
applauded the toppling of their regime by the USA in the middle 1980s.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: popularity of externally applied overthrows
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 19:06:45 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net> wrote:

> There was no way to be sure in advance, but Grenadans overwhelmingly
> applauded the toppling of their regime by the USA in the middle 1980s

Though, to be fair, that regime had only been in power for about two
days; I suspect that if there had been no coup, and the USA had invaded
to overthrow the Bishop regime, the Grenadans would still have been happy
about it, but there's no way to know for sure.

Bishop had been claiming for some time that the USA was preparing an
invasion; from the speed with which the USA responded to the coup that
ousted Bishop, it seems to me quite plausible that he was correct, and
that had the Cubans not done so first the USA might eventually have
overthrown him (though they would not have murdered him, as the Cubans
did - he was afraid of the wrong enemy).

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (M'aariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: More on jurisdiction
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 13:13:30 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to Gary Triest...

Gary Triest wrote:
> > I wonder how we, Americans and the US Govt, would feel and react if
> > other countries' agent routinely illegally entered our land, illegally
> > kidnapped one of our (or even their) citizens and illegally transported
> > them back to their country to be put on trial for something that is not
> > a crime in this country?

You replied:
> They'd feel insulted, and they might feel insulted enough to do something
> about it, up to and including a declaration of war, if they thought badly
> enough of it. That wouldn't make it `wrong' in any absolute sense,
though.
> At least, I don't know of any principle in libertarian philosophy that
> would make it wrong. Now, since the USA is so much bigger than most other
> countries, they would be advised to think twice about it. Indeed, even
> though it's so much bigger than most other countries, the USA does in
> fact think twice about doing this, and certainly doesn't do it
`routinely'.
> But it does do it on very rare occasions, when it feels the risk is worth
> it.

Let me just put it this way, since one or two of you seem to have the
notion that libertarianism and national sovereignty have little or
nothing in common.

I pointed out a day or so back, that without sovereignty, liberty
cannot exist. That doesn't mean that a sovereign government might not
consider "liberty" to be a worthwhile pursuit, as under radical
fascism or communism. Without the existence of sovereign governments,
individuals could never be consider to be free, since the strongest
bully on the block would likely control everyone else's liberty, and
no recourse to law or government force could be appealed to to resolve
any such aggression.

On the other hand, it is possible for the people to delegate limited
power to a limited government for the purpose of protecting individual
liberty. This was genuinely the case with the original US Constitution
and the limited nature of the federal government. It also afforded
the people the right to delegate such power to their state governments
to do whatever was necessary to protect their lives, property and
liberty. This limited "federalism" was a genuine affirmation that
even state sovereignty existed on all matters to delegated to the US
federal government under the Constitution.

Insofar as this sovereignty was respected, the people enjoyed the
greatest amount of liberty, varying however as it existed throughout
the individual states. It took a while before the US federal
government began to violate the Tenth Amendment and begin the process
of creating a federal criminal code in which the average citizen would
be subject. Along with the creation and expansion of the US criminal
code, and mandates upon the states, came various police state agencies
that are in themselves Unconstitutional, such as the ATF, the DEA, and
even the tax enforcement institutions such as the IRS and others. In
that process our personal liberty has gone from bad to worse in terms
of the power we have over local legislatures and the politicians who
create even additional codes, usually acting under the guise of
meeting federal government mandates.

This has sense gone even much further than that. The US government
now feels that we have the moral superiority, and certainly the power,
to enforce our mandates upon smaller and third world countries at
whim. We routine hijack foreign ships in international waters
(usually under the guise that they vessels might contain drugs or
substances in violation of US law; or might hold certain individuals
who the US government has branded a "terrorist"!

It would not be difficult to determine what reaction the US federal
government would take if US registered ships were hijacked in
international waters by small third world governments, such as was the
case when North Korea hijacked the USS PUEBLO, although evidence
suggests that the ship was likely violating North Korea's territorial
waters at the time. As a former Navy member with access to classified
information, it was routine for the US government to deploy US
submarines in both the former USSR and the PRC's coastal regions, and
set up sonobouys and other eavesdropping devices to monitor their ship
and submarine movements.

I find it hypocritical and inconceivable that the US government still
regards Iraq as aa rogue state because it is considered they may be
embarking upon building an arsenal of nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons, activities in which the US government and others have been
embarked upon for decades! It is also still an historical fact that
the ONLY nation to have ever used nuclear weapons in an act of war was
the US government! The Shrub Regime's<tm> current nuclear policy is
that we "might" use limited nuclear weapons in such places where they
might be useful, such as in Iraq; and that we reserve the "first
strike" option in any use of such weapons!

Again, as I indicated in a previous post, perhaps this is one of the
reasons why The Shrub Regime<tm> considers signing onto the
International Criminal Court to NOT be in the interests of the US
government, another arrogant and blatantly hypocritical position. If
we continue this imperialistic aggressive foreign policy, paybacks
when they come (as they did on September 11, 2001) will be forthcoming
in due course, and should be expected.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: John Lindh, Patriot
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 23:39:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote apparently to the following:

> JS = Joe Sobran
> ZS = Zev Sero <zsero@free-market.net>
> FR = Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>

You apparently are directing this post my way, in that I wrote:

> FR> To make my only point here, is that the government of Afghanistan
> FR> (prior to 9/11) was the Taliban government,

And, you responded:
> Why do you say that? In the view of the USA (which is the only view
> that counts in USAn courts), and of the Afghan govt, and of pretty
> much every other govt in the world, the Taliban were nothing but a
> band of rebels who briefly took control of 80% of the country, before
> being beaten back by the legitimate govt, with aid from the Western
> military forces.

Well, that's to put it rather mildly, since the Northern Alliance
didn't have a prayer to move out of their sad 10 percent of territory
until massive US air and firepower entered the picture. We all know
that to be absolutely true. Your so-called "legitimate" government
didn't govern much of anything, and was itself a despicable remnant of
malcontents who couldn't get their act together and govern much of
anything. They couldn't even agree on how to govern their last
holdout 10 percent of territory that they managed to hold on to.

I don't hold the same degree of esteem either to what comprises the
jurisdiction of US courts. I would have to assume that would be the
jurisdiction of the 50 US states and territories, including
territorial waters and air space. Perhaps US registered ships on the
high seas, and US embassies and consulates. Other than than, I don't
subscribe to the notion that US courts have any jurisdiction
whatsoever. If we arrogantly believe anything to the contrary of
that, then I would suggest we need several and repeatedly more lessons
as we learned in Vietnam and Somalia until that message comes home to
roost. Indeed, as the war hysteria heats up in the Shrub Regime's<tm>
planned Iraqi adventures, we may be seeing a lot more come home to
roost in the not too distant future, because we are rapidly losing any
so-called allied support from European comrades and the so-called
islamic allies we once prized so sacredly.

Indeed, and rightfully so, we may quickly find ourselves so completely
devoid of international support as to make such a sick excuse for
foreign policy a ridiculous charade of arrogance and for what it
really is. It will have my complete and unqualified blessing and
concurrence.

I previously wrote:
> FR> Your use of terms, e.g.: Taliban Insurrection, is also questionable.
> FR> Lets face it, the Taliban WAS the Afghan government for better of
> FR> worse.

And, you replied:
> In whose eyes? Not those of pretty much anyone outside the areas that
> they controlled.

Doesn't really matter now does it? The Afghan people seemed to go
along with it. The only resistance was holed up in the upper northwest
eastern 10 percent of the country where they could still manage to
hold on. It sure doesn't appear that this group of malcontents had
much serious division from the 90 percent of the country under their
control. So, I guess my next natural questions must be pertinent:
Who else on the damn planet has any moral authority to claim a
legitimate government for the people of Afghanistan? The US
taxpayer? US military mercenaries? You tell me, because I am at a
loss.

> No, they were fighting the Northern Alliance, which was what remained
> of the last internationally recognised govt of Afghanistan.

International or not, it really doesn't matter, now does it? It was a
matter of self-determination, a matter for the Afghan people
themselves to address.

> Why would we want to do that, considering that we were in fact *helping*
> the forces of the Afghan govt retake their country from the Taliban
> insurrection? (Though as a condition of our help we required that govt
> to consent to being replaced by a more inclusive regime.)

Exactly, a "puppet regime" under foreign control! Hardly a showcase
for self-determination. As the Puppet Regime of South Vietnam fell
due to lack of local support, this one will likely follow the same
pattern unless billions of dollars and foreign lives are put on the
front line to make this artificial monstrosity pretend to work, at
least for a while anyway. We've danced around this same barn many
times before.

But this isn't going to matter very much anyway in the short or long
term, since we've taken it upon ourselves to exercise this same degree
of arrogance by targeting Iraq for the same fate. It won't be much
longer before the caller comes knocking at our own gates. We're
losing it folks! Hopefully this era of US imperialism will soon be
dead and dying. It is long overdue, and again, we have it all coming
back at us, and rightfully so, in spades.

> Why not? Even if the Taliban were to be recognised as the Afghan govt,
> we are at war with al-Qaeda, and the Taliban allied themselves with our
> enemies, which automatically put them at war with us. And even if none
> of that where true, what moral principle says that the USA (or anyone
> else of good will) may not overthrow an odious regime, anywhere in the
> world? Why must tyrants be allowed to prosper, simply because they
> control a piece of territory and call themselves a government?

And what moral authority or pretext does the US government have to
install puppet regimes that are innocuous to indigenous people who
want nothing to do with foreign interference in their own affairs?
Again, it is none of our business what people decide to delegate to
the government that best represents them. We have no moral
justification for deciding for anyone what their own government,
society, economy or social manifestation is. We can provide an
example, as we should, but when we resort to the use of military force
to accomplish such ends, we lose entirely any pretended morality we
use as justification.

> The real question should be whether a govt is so bad that it deserves
> to be overthrown, and whether the replacement is significantly better,
> or in fact worse. If a demonstrably bad govt is replaced with a better
> one, making the people under its control significantly more free, then
> it is a good thing no matter who does it; but if a govt is replaced by
> something worse, then it's a bad thing even if the forces that achieve
> the change are home-grown rather than foreign. Why is it better to be
> ruled by a home-grown tyrant than by a foreign one?

Well, I am glad you spelled this out so nicely here, because the US
government on this occasion and many others, has become the foreign
tyrant. People will hate and resent us for what we have done, and
none of our fine and nobel ideals will mean one damn thing in the
scheme of things. This nation has become so damn arrogant that it is
reprehensible to any reasonable mind. We are quickly losing even our
civilized allies in Europe and elsewhere. We have become a false
legend of our own mind, and indeed, to be an American today and go
along with these atrocities has become tantamount to believing we are
a legend of our own mind.

I guess my perspective on a lot of things may differ from your own,
and for that I apologize. But most of my adult life has been outside
of the US, and I have a great deal of respect for the ideas and
thoughts of those who view the US government as an arrogant and
grossly overzealous adversary. For over five decades we have used
superior military might to imperialistically gain control over
economic, political and social realities, and the rest of the world
resents such arrogance and power. It is insulting, rude, and is seen
in most places as absolute arrogance and misplaced pride.

We've long ago lost any moral advantage that we may have ever had in
the way and manner that we have conducted our foreign policy. I am
heartened by the fact that our so-called allies in Europe may finally
be taking us to task, and that this day of arrogant abuse of power by
the US government may be coming to an end. It won't be a pleasant end
however, because a lot of folks are pissed off, and a day of reckoning
is at hand. And, at least in my judgement, there won't be many
sympathetic hearts in our court when that day finally arrives.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Maybe there is hope after all...
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:58:48 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again everyone!

According to the talking heads of the major news media, including FOX
NEWS, several key Congressional leaders within the GOP are now calling
into question whether the Shrub Regime<tm> has established its case
for initiating and prosecuting a war against Iraq!

Indeed, this if fabulous news. Finally, cooler heads may be
prevailing after all, and at the same time not coming from bi-partisan
politics, but from within the ranks of the GOP itself. Indeed, until
about a day or so ago, I was firmly convinced that the Shrub
Regime<tm> might actually pull off one of the greatest foreign policy
disasters since the nefarious Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which ended
up with the demise of 58,000 Americans in a war that was none of our
business to begin with. It now appears, that the US Congress may
finally challenging some of the Shrub's basic assumptions, derived it
appears more from political expediency, than from basic facts.

Even stalwarts, such as Richard Armie and others within the GOP, are
finally stating publicly that the Shrub Regime<tm> has so far, not put
forth a convincing case to justify a unilateral attack against Iraq by
the US government. This kind of reminds me of earlier days, when
Richard Nixon was visited at the White House by key Republican
leaders, such as the late Barry Goldwater, and warned, "Son, the
damage has been done, and it's time to step down." We may finally be
getting closer to just that sort of scenario as the Shrub seeks to
declare global war on various third-world nations because, at least
for a time, it was in vogue and engendered public support to prop up
this faltering regime that can't come to grips with global realities.

Anyone with any mind whatsoever, knows full well that since the Shrub
took office, civil liberties in the US has been on a tailspin
downwards at horrendous rates. None of this sabre rattling has
anything to do with liberty, civil liberty, economic liberty, or
social liberty. It's everything to do with fascism and government
control over all of the choices that we have the inalienable right to
make for ourselves, our lives, families and private property. Since
September 11, 2001, we have given the federal government powers never
imagined possible even during the fallacious Clinton regime.

Hopefully those around here who have been campaigning for more
freedom, can see some of the discrepancies against such ideals, and
the continuation of the US government's foreign policy which has the
effect of denying such basic principles as self-determination,
arrogant usurpations of sovereignty, and the right for every nation to
determine for themselves what kind of life they are "allowed" to live
under. Other than God, I fail to see how any regime on earth has such
moral authority to make such decisions for everyone else, particularly
when such regimes as the Shrub Regime<tm> has been one of the most
blatant offenders against civil liberties as has been documented to
date.

Maybe now some light will finally shine, and a second look into the
last 12 months of anti-libertarian, even fascist dictates has been put
into place by our own government, will finally be brought into open
light! We all need to re-examine what has taken place in the last 12
months. Unlawful detentions, disavowals of international treaties,
such as the Geneva Conventions, military tribunals, arrests without
warrants, and a host of other unsavoury fascist tactics put forth by
our own government. This list could go one and on, but hopefully we
may begin to take a second look at all of this.

If we permit this kind of mentality to prevail, it will certainly
spell the end of the great experiment in self-government that this
nation began as its' geneses! Now is a great time for some serious
introspection in just who we are, and what we really believe? Along
these lines, I submit, we'll have to deal with some of the baggage
that brought us to this point, including five decades of imperialistic
aggression and foreign policy.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 12:08:16 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Oh please! The US is the only country that has ever been attacked and
> after winning the war, gave up some of its land (hint: you're living
there,
> Frank).

I have no idea what history books you've read that can be used to
support this statement. Truth is, the US was never a major colonial
power, and had virtually nothing to give away. For 450-500 years, in
retrospect, Britain has to be the truly premiere colonial power in
terms of territory. Others of major importance included Spain,
Portugal, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

Britain still held much of its empire intact following the end of the
Second World War. After the war, the British desolved its Dominion
status with Australia, India, Pakistan, New Zealand, South Africa,
Canada, etc., and replaced the links to the "Empire" with a loosely
unbinding "Commonwealth". At the same time, virtually all of British
colonial holdings in Africa, east Asia, South, Central America and the
Caribbean were granted independence, some joining the loosely
constructed Commonwealth organization.

Of all of the colonial powers indicated above, only France probably
comes the closest to maintaining some kind of political affiliation
with many of its former colonial territories, including a few of them
who have opted to become a part of Metropolitan France itself,
including French Guiana, St. Pierre & Miquelon, all of its Caribbean
holdings, Indian Ocean territories, and various south Pacific
holdings. France continues to have military, political, economic,
social and cultural ties with most of its former colonies in islamic
North Africa, although for practical reasons they are all largely
independent of any direct rule from France. This helps to explain why
French foreign policy is markedly different from US foreign policy
regarding the flash point issues embroiling the islamic world.

A couple of sub points need to be made here as well. European
colonialism didn't simply wither away entirely either without
responsibility. Many European nations which formerly controlled vast
colonial empires, continued to play dominant roles in defending their
former colonies' independence and defence. When Indonesia annexed
East Timor following Portugal's blanket withdrawal, Portugal continued
to insist that Indonesia's aggression was illegal and violated East
Timor's sovereignty and right to self-determination. Portugal argued
in the UN and elsewhere to end Indonesia's illegal occupation.
Portugal has also worked with its former giant former African colonies
of Angola and Mozambique to help end the civil wars and restore
economic and political conditions. Finally, East Timor was able to
wrestle independence from Indonesia, and Portugal continues to play a
supporting role in that effort.

In the scope of the last five decades following the Second World War,
the US as a victor in the defeat of the Axis powers, gave away very
little land by contrast. It can also be successfully argued, that
Russia (the former Soviet Union), also a victor in the Second World
War, has given away far more in terms of its former empire than other
European nations possibly excluding Britain. And when you include
Soviet proxy holdings of such states as Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia,
Somalia, Afghanistan, and Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos), the
territorial concessions were staggering in comparison to anything that
the US gave up, mainly the Philippines and Cuba. Interesting that the
US still maintains sovereignty in such places as the Pacific
territories, including Guam, and in Puerto Rico -- however not very
significant in terms of colonial real estate on the scales indicated
above.

So, where am I going with this? Well, although the US has never been
a major colonial power, at least in the traditional sense, we have
become the major imperialistic power in terms of using military
aggression, economic muscle and intimidation, to maintain and control
economic hegemony over much of the third world. We use the IMF/World
Bank and other institutions to first destabilize limited economic
sovereignty, and then dictate the terms for economic bailouts
dependent upon restructuring of a nation's economic, banking and
fiscal policies, e.g.: Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, the Philippines,
and elsewhere. Indeed, very few nations have been able to overcome
these intimidations and extortion's. Some of the more successful have
been Taiwan, Malaysia, Burma and China itself.

In the above examples, it is difficult to come to the conclusion that
the US has given up much of anything in the last five decades. In
terms of global physical property, we never had very much to begin
with, but US economic neo-colonialism following the Second World War
has been phenomenal in terms of degree of control and its scope and
power over host nations. To get to this level of control, I submit
that much of what took place militarily during the cold war, was
really designed to rapidly expand US economic hegemony, rather than an
effort to defeat communism. A case in point is China, which still
calls itself a Marxist state. China's economic expansion is one of the
greatest on earth, although economically speaking, and under the
conditions of WTO membership, China will be forced to undergo massive
economic restructuring to meet IMF/World Bank and WTO guidelines.

As a result, China will have far less control over its economic,
banking, and fiscal policies and will eventually come under the direct
control of the WTO, and other so-called international institutions
controlled largely by the US and Group of 7 industrialized nations.
The only difference here is that China has the military muscle to
perhaps balk at any adverse mandates that inevitably could be seen as
detrimental to China's best national interests.

I guess in view of this, we really should ask why the Shrub Regime<tm>
is really so intent upon embarking upon and initiating a war against
Iraq and other third-world mostly islamic states? Certainly in terms
of a threat of possible war against the US or Western Europe, Iraq
poses no threat in the foreseeable future. In terms of weapons of
mass destruction, the US, Britain, France, and Russia far exceeds
Iraq's capabilities to launch any kind of protracted nuclear, chemical
or biological war!

Certainly I do not have all of the answers, however certainly it can't
be ruled out either that petroleum might be the real motivating
factor, and its relationship to the economies of the western
industrialized group of nations that might consider a major defeat
against Iraq as a "wake up call" to maintain hegemony over Saudi,
Kuwait, and Gulf Emirates energy policies. If the US government sets
up a puppet regime in Iraq, as the latest "visits" by the Iraqi
opposition groups in Washington suggest, then we can presume a large
US military presence in the region will itself be intimidating in a
region that has a substantial percentage of the earth's petroleum
reserves.

Saudi Arabia's fragile hold on power is another case in point. Anyone
taking the time to look at a regional map will quickly discover the
Iraq is in a central geographical position, that if entirely in
western hands, and propped up by a puppet regime of US making, that
the US can use tremendous military muscle to control petroleum and
energy policies in this region. I submit again, that democracy,
liberty and self-determination have nothing at all to do with any of
this. It is outright imperialist US raw aggression of the most blatant
sort that is driving this feeding frenzy to first destabilize and then
finally topple the independent Iraqi regime in power, and replace it
with a US-controlled puppet regime backed up and legitimized with
tremendous and massive US military power (Peace keepers) ala
Afghanistan.

So, as this all unfolds, I hope everyone will consider other
possibilities at why the Shrub Regime<tm> might really be so intent to
topple the current Iraqi government. As the current Shrub regime
presents its case, and as the media dutifully reports on the
government's intentions, we need to be more critical and objective in
figuring out what might really be the underlying motivating factors
leading up to a war to topple Saddam Hussein.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 19:58:21 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Goodman, and Frank Reichert...

To Robert, you wrote:
> Oops, waitaminite! I take that back. Israel is giving up land that it
> conquered in the war. The US gave up land it had held before the war (the
> Philippines).

We took the Philippines from Spain (during the Spanish American War),
not Japan, nor Germany (after their defeat in WWII). The only other
nation of any significant size was Cuba, which did not become
independent until sometime after the end of the Second World War, not
related to war in either case. So the British, French, Portuguese,
Spanish, Dutch and Belgium models I offered earlier still stand as a
great comparison. Philippine independence was already under a
separate time table BEFORE the US entered WWII -- in other words, not
related in anyway to either winning or losing a war.

To Frank, you wrote:
> As for Britain and France, well, France lost--it just happened to be on
the
> winning side when all was said and done. Britain came within a
> hairsbreadth and would have lost without US support. I suppose I should
> have better qualified that as "after ending the war far stronger than it
> was when the war began, gave up some of its pre-war land." That would
> apply to neither Britain or France. Both were basically exhausted after
WWII.

Again, the US didn't have anything significant to give away, and even
in the case of the Philippines, the time table was already established
prior to the US entering the war. The transitional Commonwealth
government in the Philippines was already firmly established prior to
the Japanese invasion, and it was only a matter of meeting the
independence date that remained to take place.

By contrast, even Portugal has given away far greater territory than
that US ever has, both in terms of size and in material wealth.
Again, I want to emphasize that the US NEVER have up one square inch
of territory as a result of winning WWII. The war had nothing
whatsoever to do with the independence of either the Philippines, nor
of Cuba, which came later.

I really don't see your point in all of this.

> And as for the Soviet Union. They gave up the land because they
> lost. (The Cold war.)

I'm not so sure you can claim they "lost" the cold war, since
Gorbechev was really the catalyst for a rapidly changing Soviet state,
which eventually led to a confederation of independent states, and
independence for former Soviet colonies in eastern Europe.
Considering that the former Soviet Republics have largely gained
considerable freedom, democratic and economic reforms, and are moving
rapidly to integrate with former enemies as we speak, I would suggest
that Russia was more of a winner than a loser. Russia had patriots
with courage and vision, and if it were not for that, the cold war
might have been prolonged considerably. Individuals such as Gorbechev,
Yeltsen and Putin were all, in their own way, remarkable individuals
who had great vision for change.

We give Ronald Reagan too much credit for the demise of the Soviet
state and ending the cold war. I believe obviously Gorbechev's
advances and openness to the west helped facilitate the changes that
eventually were made. He also was more open to democratic
self-determination in the eastern block than any of his predecessors.
Yeltsen's tremendous courage in standing up before a coup attempt to
topple Gorbechev was nothing less than absolutely remarkable --
standing upon a Soviet rebel tank in front of the Parliament building
heading off a counter revolution. Although the American revolution
also has many great heroes, the world witnessed these events on live
television.

Another thing about Yeltsen. He stepped down on his own accord when I
believe he realized that his contribution to Russia had been
completed. He withdrew without the former power struggles and purging
mechanisms of the former Soviet Union, and threw his support behind
President Putin -- a man for the times in today's Russia and in the
transition to a pluralistic democracy.

You make too light of the disintegration of the Soviet Union as simply
losing the cold war. Certainly the hard liners did try and resist
these reforms, and many are still bitching and complaining about the
"good old days" being lost. Nevertheless, the changes were more than
conceding defeat in the cold war. The changes again, were made by
courageous men of vision, who believed that change was necessary to
bring the then Soviet Union into the 21st century.

> And finally as for the US being an "Imperialist Power", we're a pretty
> benign one. Our former enemies are now our friends and allies (albeit
> somewhat limp-wristed allies) and not only that, but within about 30-40
> years of their defeat at our hands, were enjoying economic wealth almost
on
> a par with their former conquerer.

That's an over simplification of history, particularly in the case of
Japan. The Japanese were not a part of the Marshall Plan, and it was
initially the purpose of the US government to allow Japan to flounder
in the aftermath of WWII. In Europe, Germany was seen by the allies as
vital to the growing menace of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, and
it was decided to draw the line by building up and making Germany a
counter balance to the USSR's ambitions in eastern Europe,
particularly when it became evident that the Soviets had no intention
of German reunification.

The Japan matter went very differently, particularly with the fall of
China to the Reds, and then the Korean War across the straight from
Japan. Building up Japan was not done because it was in Japan's best
interest. After Mao's forced defeated the nationalist regime, and the
Korean War sprung upon the stage, the US determined that a strong
economic and military Japan was of vital interest to put a check on
Communist expansion in the region. It was during this period that the
US began to rely upon Japan as a great manufacturing and resupply base
to conduct the war effort in Korea, and then later Vietnam. Up until
the end of the Vietnam War, Japan was the host to thousands of US
combat troops, ships, and air bases.

Therefore, the reasons why hurculean investment and aid to build up
Japan had little to do with Japan's interest, and much more to
America's imperial interest in maintain hegemony over east Asia and as
a check on what was perceived as Communist expansion.

> All of the other "victims" of US
> "imperialism" have also done reasonably well

Yea, I've noticed. Have you been following how well things are going
in Argentina, Brazil and various other recipients of IMF/World Bank
financing and assistance? Economists are now predicting that even
these new infusions in loans and restructuring will not solve
anything, but will only prolong another crisis in the not to distant
future. Argentina used to be the western hemisphere's third largest
economy! Indeed, we see very few success stories where the IMF and
World Bank have stepped in to hijack any nations economic and monetary
policies! So how you figure such victims are doing reasonably well is
certainly questionable at best. In east Asia, for example, the
nations that are doing the best, i.e.: Hong Kong, Singapore, South
Korea, Taiwan and Japan have largely done so independently of US and
international aid packages from the IMF. Malaysia has resisted many of
the IMF demands and mandates, and is doing much better than most in
the region. And the REAL economic success story, the economic
emergence of China was largely a result of controlled reforms
instigated by the Chinese government and not a product of US
hegemony. But that may be changing with China's entrance into the
WTO.

> The only fault in US policy (if it was one) lay in *not*
> intervening more vigorously when one of our "victims of imperialism" was
> going wrong.

You haven't spent much time in this part of the world obviously. The
reason for east Asia's unprecedented economic growth, when it has
occurred in the last 20 years, has been the result of basic economic
reforms and economic alliances between the nations themselves, such as
the ASEAN alliance, which has now grown to include Vietnam, Cambodia
and Burma. It has reduced restrictions on trade and tariffs and has
resulted in more vigorous economic growth. It has also reduced
political tensions. Conversely, when economic stagnation has
occurred, it has almost invariably been the result of IMF coercion and
tampering, withholding funding until demands are met and certain
economic and banking restructuring and reforms have been made.

On foreign policy matters, I guess we'll just have to agree to
disagree.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:37:21 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Sorry, folks, this is another long one.

Greetings, Frank:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Goodman, and Frank Reichert...
>
>To Robert, you wrote:
> > Oops, waitaminite! I take that back. Israel is giving up land that it
> > conquered in the war. The US gave up land it had held before the war
(the
> > Philippines).
>
>We took the Philippines from Spain (during the Spanish American War),
>not Japan, nor Germany (after their defeat in WWII). The only other
>nation of any significant size was Cuba, which did not become
>independent until sometime after the end of the Second World War, not
>related to war in either case. So the British, French, Portuguese,
>Spanish, Dutch and Belgium models I offered earlier still stand as a
>great comparison. Philippine independence was already under a
>separate time table BEFORE the US entered WWII -- in other words, not
>related in anyway to either winning or losing a war.

It's true that we had promised independence to the Philippines and that
WWII intruded. However, after the hard fight to recover the Philippines
from the Japanese, we could very easily have reneged. The fact remains
that the Philippines was significant territory that we had at the beginning
of the war and gave up right after the war was over--even though we easily
had the military power to keep it. My original point was that after
winning a horrendous war and having a far stronger military than we had at
the beginning of the war, we not only did not take over new territory, we
gave up territory we already had.

>To Frank, you wrote:
> > As for Britain and France, well, France lost--it just happened to be on
the
> > winning side when all was said and done. Britain came within a
> > hairsbreadth and would have lost without US support. I suppose I should
> > have better qualified that as "after ending the war far stronger than it
> > was when the war began, gave up some of its pre-war land." That would
> > apply to neither Britain or France. Both were basically exhausted
> after WWII.
>
>By contrast, even Portugal has given away far greater territory than
>that US ever has, both in terms of size and in material wealth.

Right. They either lost it in war or decided that they were going to lose
a war if they kept it much longer.

> > And finally as for the US being an "Imperialist Power", we're a pretty
> > benign one. Our former enemies are now our friends and allies (albeit
> > somewhat limp-wristed allies) and not only that, but within about 30-40
> > years of their defeat at our hands, were enjoying economic wealth almost
on
> > a par with their former conquerer.
>
>That's an over simplification of history, particularly in the case of
>Japan. The Japanese were not a part of the Marshall Plan, and it was
>initially the purpose of the US government to allow Japan to flounder
>in the aftermath of WWII. In Europe, Germany was seen by the allies as
>vital to the growing menace of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe, and
>it was decided to draw the line by building up and making Germany a
>counter balance to the USSR's ambitions in eastern Europe,
>particularly when it became evident that the Soviets had no intention
>of German reunification.
>
>The Japan matter went very differently, particularly with the fall of
>China to the Reds, and then the Korean War across the straight from
>Japan. Building up Japan was not done because it was in Japan's best
>interest. After Mao's forced defeated the nationalist regime, and the
>Korean War sprung upon the stage, the US determined that a strong
>economic and military Japan was of vital interest to put a check on
>Communist expansion in the region. It was during this period that the
>US began to rely upon Japan as a great manufacturing and resupply base
>to conduct the war effort in Korea, and then later Vietnam. Up until
>the end of the Vietnam War, Japan was the host to thousands of US
>combat troops, ships, and air bases.
>
>Therefore, the reasons why hurculean investment and aid to build up
>Japan had little to do with Japan's interest, and much more to
>America's imperial interest in maintain hegemony over east Asia and as
>a check on what was perceived as Communist expansion.

So Frank, can you point me to some documentation of this "herculean
investment and aid" to build up Japan? I'm sure there's some reasonably
"authoritative source" on the Web--if such aid existed. To be sure, we
basically ran that country for several years and when the Korean War began,
we dumped a lot more military over there which created some jobs (even some
that didn't require women. :-) But there's *NO WAY* any of that (or the 4
years of the Marshall Plan, from '47 to '51) brought them up to economic
wealth nearly on a par with the US! In fact, what got the Marshall Plan
going was that some of these countries were *so bad off* that we figured
that if we didn't do *something* they'd degenerate into following whatever
whacko blamed their troubles on their neighbors! What really drove the
Japanese (and Western European) economy was that they liberalized and
companies were able to produce goods and sell them and profit from
them. The Marshall Plan came with strings attached. "You get this money
so your people will all have food and heat and clothes and shelter, but
only if you get rid of your trade barriers and reduce your taxes on
businesses, etc."

We talked about this before and you told the list that the Philippines has
a 49% limitation on foreign investment in local firms (in other words,
local ownership must be at least 51%) and that there were several other
problems with setting up businesses in the Philippines. That's part of the
reason that the Philippines is doing so poorly, especially in comparison to
other places in that area which do not have those limits on businesses
(like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and Malaysia)

> > All of the other "victims" of US
> > "imperialism" have also done reasonably well
>
>Yea, I've noticed. Have you been following how well things are going
>in Argentina, Brazil and various other recipients of IMF/World Bank
>financing and assistance?

Oh. So now US imperialism takes the form of IMF/World Bank financing and
assistance? Well, I suppose that is just one more reason to stop sending
US funds to those institutions. A whole bunch of people think that they
are *US* institutions rather than multinational ones and blame the idiocy
of these institutions on "US Imperialism."

> Economists are now predicting that even
>these new infusions in loans and restructuring will not solve
>anything, but will only prolong another crisis in the not to distant
>future. Argentina used to be the western hemisphere's third largest
>economy!

Argentina's problem is not because of IMF or the World Bank, or anything
except socialist policies that Argentina can't seem to get rid of. Early
in the last century, they had the money to set up some super social
programs, a great "safety net" for anyone that needed (or wanted) it, and a
great retirement program. Well, now the money isn't coming in for things
like wood and beef the way it used to and so Argentina is trying to figure
out how to keep paying for those programs. Now, the IMF contributed, in a
small way by helping Argentina defer the day of reckoning which, of course
only made that day worse.

> Indeed, we see very few success stories where the IMF and
>World Bank have stepped in to hijack any nations economic and monetary
>policies! So how you figure such victims are doing reasonably well is
>certainly questionable at best. In east Asia, for example, the
>nations that are doing the best, i.e.: Hong Kong, Singapore, South
>Korea, Taiwan and Japan have largely done so independently of US and
>international aid packages from the IMF. Malaysia has resisted many of
>the IMF demands and mandates, and is doing much better than most in
>the region.

Hmm. And here I thought that all of these were "victims" of Western
Imperialism. Malaysia and Singapore were a former British colony, but
gained independence something like 40 years ago, so they're the least
"victimized". Taiwan got cut loose by Carter in '78, but, of course, they
still "suffer ongoing US imperialism" in the form of weapons sales and
protection by the 7th fleet. Hong Kong was a British possession until '99,
thus a "victim" of "British Imperialism", and, finally, of course, South
Korea and Japan "suffer" from the "US Imperialism" which takes the form of
US troops and bases on their soil to this very day. Sounds to me like the
best way to be a "success story" is to be a "victim" of Anglo-American
"Imperialism". :-)

> And the REAL economic success story, the economic
>emergence of China was largely a result of controlled reforms
>instigated by the Chinese government and not a product of US
>hegemony. But that may be changing with China's entrance into the
>WTO.

OK. So China managed to do the right thing without being "victimized" by
"US Imperialism". That still doesn't mean that being a "victim of US
Imperialism" isn't an advantage. :-)

> > The only fault in US policy (if it was one) lay in *not*
> > intervening more vigorously when one of our "victims of imperialism" was
> > going wrong.
>
>You haven't spent much time in this part of the world obviously. The
>reason for east Asia's unprecedented economic growth, when it has
>occurred in the last 20 years, has been the result of basic economic
>reforms and economic alliances between the nations themselves, such as
>the ASEAN alliance, which has now grown to include Vietnam, Cambodia
>and Burma. It has reduced restrictions on trade and tariffs and has
>resulted in more vigorous economic growth. It has also reduced
>political tensions.

Let's see here, the ASEAN alliance contains:

Brunei: GDP/capita: $17,600

Cambodia: GDP/capita: $1,300

Indonesia: GDP/capita: $2,900

Laos: GDP/capita: $1,700

Malaysia: GDP/capita: $10,300

Myanmar (Burma): GDP/capita: $1,500

Phillippines: GDP/capita: $3,800

Singapore: GDP/capita: $26,500

Thailand: GDP/capita: $6,700

Vietnam: GDP/capita: $1,950

For some of these countries, the question is, if they've just enjoyed
"unprecedented economic growth" as you claim, Frank, where were they before
that??

Other than Brunei, this is pretty much a case for "Western Imperialism" and
"western" free economies. (I know almost nothing about Brunei other than
that it gained independence from Britain in 1984 (more "Western
Imperialism") and over half the GDP comes from exports of oil and gas and a
substantial portion of the remainder from overseas investments--meaning the
average "Joe" probably gets squat while the Sultan lives it up--in fact
didn't Forbes or someone say he was the "richest man on earth"?)

Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos famously rejected "Western Imperialism"--both
through war and subsequent policy. Look where it's gotten them. Burma was
a British colony and has been wracked by war almost continuously since
WWII--making it another place where a little "Western Imperialism" to end
the warring and set up a democracy might have helped. Indonesia was a
Dutch colony that gained independence in 1949 only to get 4 decades of
"authoritarian rule", which apparently was better than communism, but only
barely. We've already discussed why the Philippines didn't benefit from "US
Imperialism" and, of course, the remainder are happy beneficiaries of
various levels of good ol' "Western Imperialism".

>Conversely, when economic stagnation has
>occurred, it has almost invariably been the result of IMF coercion and
>tampering, withholding funding until demands are met and certain
>economic and banking restructuring and reforms have been made.

Yup. Here we go again with International Monetary Fund apparently being
run by the US. Of course, to some extent, the demands have been the
correct ones. But if these economies were doing so splendidly, why did
they need to run cap in hand to the IMF?

>On foreign policy matters, I guess we'll just have to agree to
>disagree.

That's fine, but you're going to state your opinions, you'll have to do a
better job of backing them up.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:24:00 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I just received this press release moments ago, and believe that it is
time sensitive to pass it along prior to the outbreak of any
conflagration in the Middle East that may have greater consequences
than anything either the Shrub Regime<tm> and the news media moguls
have led us to believe this far.

Also, you may be interested in bookmarking the web site below for this
organization and following this thread further as developments occur.

At any rate, the prospect for Israel becoming a major player in any
hostilities against Iraq, particularly an Israeli first strike, would
absolutely create a volatile situation from which current foreign
policy planners would be faced with daunting uncertainties for a much
wider war, perhaps widening far from the confines of the Mid East
itself.

It may be time now for the US Congress to place appropriate restraints
upon the war hysteria rhetoric and policies of the Shrub Regime<tm>
before irreparable foreign policy damage has been done than can no
longer be resolved at a diplomatic level.

I urge you, regardless of how you feel about unilateral military
action against Iraq, to read this press release. It never hurts to
get a second opinion before one commits themselves to open-ended
conflict with perhaps no resolution in site other than perhaps
removing one dictator from power. The prospect here for a much wider
conflagration and war is a real one. Such a conflict would only
further bifurcate and marginalize the US government from much of the
world. It will increase further hostilities, terrorist acts, and
further exacerbate an already unstable region.

I further contend that this has never been about liberty or
self-determination.

Please read and enjoy.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Mid-East Realities [mailto:MERL@MiddleEast.Org]
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 2:50 PM
To: MER
Subject: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?

_______ ____ ______
/ |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S
/ /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\ www.MiddleEast.Org

News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!

WAR FEVER RISING FAST

WHO WILL STRIKE FIRST?

[MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org - Washington - 8/12/2002]:

Faced with hostility and war threats Israel struck first in 1967
destroying most of the Egyptian airforce on the ground; then a few
days
later Israel again struck first this time against Syria which had been
assured by the U.S. that would not take place. That "Six-Day War" led
to the capture of what we today call the "occupied territories"; and
thus to today's dangerously explosive imbroglio.
During that war in 1967 it is not usually mentioned that the CIA
provided Israel top secret photo-intelligence reconnaissance info that
in fact allowed the Israelis to win the war so quickly and to capture
so
much additional territory. Secretly US military personnel stationed
at
the huge US Base in Ramstein, Germany were taken to another major US
military facility in Rota, Spain. There they were stripped of all
identifications and covertly flown to the Negev dessert where they
performed the crucial espionage work in tandem with the Israelis using
secret high-tech (at that time) U.S. Air Force planes with all U.S.
identifications removed
Now in 2002 Israel is killing and plundering the Palestinian
people
worse than ever, all made possible by the latest American weaponry,
far
greater CIA assistance, and huge amounts of money; all making it
possible for Israel to push forward the ongoing conquest of the
territories taken in 1967. And the Americans are themselves
justifying
their loud war cries against Iraq and "the axis of evil" with the
"doctrine of preemption", having been unable to establish a credible
connection with the "war against terrorism".
Under these circumstances, the fast breaking reports that the Iraq
leadership has taken to underground bunkers and the Israelis now fear
possibly imminent missile attack cannot be dismissed as just
propaganda
or hysteria. Should the war start in this way the Iraqis and others
will sure declare after the fact that it was a "pre-emptive" strike
made
necessary by continual American and Israeli threats and preparations
to
attack without warning. The Iraqis may conclude that otherwise their
military capabilities might be destroyed by a sudden attack similar to
what the Israelis did in 1967 in fact.
It is very difficult to know at this time just what is propaganda
and what is real. But it's worth saying again at this point: With
all
the US preparations for, as well as talk about, a lightning
'preemptive'
strike to decapitate Iraq and prevent use of its military
capabilities,
the very same reasoning may well be used by Iraq to justify a
'preemptive' strike against Israel. Moreover, the Americans and
Israelis are known to be working feverishly on war preparations with
major new military bases in the region now receiving huge amounts of
weaponry and with considerable US military and CIA personnel already
known to be converging on the region in many countries including
Turkey,
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.
This said, it's also possible the Israelis are attempting to
manipulate history once again themselves hoping to push forward an
American attack on Iraq and to prepare public opinion for their own
military strikes against Iraq (and possibly Hezbollah in Lebanon,
Syria,
and maybe even Iran). And/or the Iraqis may be wanting to heat up the
situation now in hopes some kind of deal with the U.N. might be
arranged
which they would then try to use to prevent an American/Israeli
attack.
And with all this said, these late-breaking stories all from
today's
media:

SADDAM IS 160FT UNDER;
TYRANT'S DEFIANT MESSAGE AS HE MOVES TO A BUNKER

[London Daily MIRROR - 12 August]: SADDAM Hussein is moving his
Government into underground bunkers to prepare for a US and British
attack.
From his hideout 160ft down, the Iraqi tyrant yesterday sent out a
defiant message to the West. "If they come, we are ready," he said.
"We
will fight them on the streets, from the rooftops, from house to
house.
We will never surrender. "That is what Churchill promised the invaders
threatening England. And that is what we can promise the crusaders if
they come here."
The warning was delivered through Labour MP George Galloway during
an
interview an hour's drive from Baghdad.
Entire ministries are thought to be leaving their permanent
headquarters, likely to be targeted for cruise missile attack, and
moving into command bunkers.
Mr Galloway said communications between ministries and Saddam were
being relayed by word of mouth to beat high-tech US eavesdropping.
Israel prepares for Iraqi strike 'at any moment'

ISRAEL CLAIMS IRAQIS GETTING READY TO STRIKE

JERUSALEM, World Tribune - 12 August - Israel has determined that
Iraq
is preparing a missile strike that
could be launched at any time.

Officials said the government has prepared a series of plans to defend
against and retaliate for any Iraqi missile attack on Israel. They
said
the plans were discussed and endorsed by the United States.

"Israel should be prepared to face an Iraqi attack at any moment,"
Israeli Science Minister Matan Vilnai said.

Israel's plans include the deployment of additional assets to defend
against any Iraqi missile attack. Officials said Israel wants to
deploy
two Arrow-2 missile defense batteries, Middle East Newsline reported.

One Arrow-2 battery has been operational at an air force base in
southwestern Israel. A second Arrow-2 battery is meant for deployment
at
Ein Shemer, east of the coastal city of Hadera.

So far, officials said, the Ein Shemer site contains the Green Pine
early-warning radar. They said the Arrow-2 battery and interceptors
will
be deployed when the prospect of a U.S. attack on Baghdad is imminent.

A military statement said the second Arrow-2 battery is being deployed
as part of a multi-year test program. The statement said the
deployment
was planned "a long time ago."

The officials said Iraq could decide to preempt any U.S. attack on the
regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with a missile barrage
against
Israel. They said such an Iraqi attack could be aimed at foiling U.S.
plans to use Jordan and Gulf states as launching pads for a military
campaign against Baghdad.

Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Israel is well-prepared for
any U.S. war against Iraq. Ben-Eliezer said the Arrow-2 is ready to
defend against missile attacks and authorities have prepared enough
gas
masks to protect Israelis from nonconventional weapons.

Officials said authorities have tested masks for the protection of
Israeli civilians against Iraqi chemical weapons attacks. The Defense
Ministry said the gas masks kits, produced by Even Sapir, passed their
latest round of tests, conducted at a naval base in Haifa.

Production of the masks are expected to begin later this year. The
kits
are expected to replace masks distributed by authorities since 1992.
The
new masks, which will not require batteries for operation, will come
in
two sizes and is meant to fit anyone above the age of eight.

Officials said the Defense Ministry wants to sell the production
rights
for Even Sapir masks to U.S. contractors. They said this would
guarantee
a production line for the masks during any war. The kit is estimated
at
costing $60.

ISRAEL WILL RETALIATE IF IRAQ STRIKES
By Alan Philps in Jerusalem

[London Daily Mirror - 12 August]
Israel has told the United States that it will retaliate if attacked
by Iraqi
missiles during the promised American assault to remove Saddam
Hussein.

The decision means that Israel is likely to be a participant in the
campaign,
in contrast to the 1991 Gulf war, when it was restrained by
Washington.

Officials said the prime minister, Ariel Sharon, had told to President
Bush
that there was no question of Israel staying on the sidelines as it
did in
the past.

The Americans are understood to be sympathetic to Israel's desire to
demonstrate its deterrent capability, although they are pressing for
any
response to be "symbolic" if there are no casualties. But there is
little
likelihood of the Israelis showing such restraint.

"Israel paid a price in terms of its deterrent posture by not
responding in
the past to Iraqi attacks," said Dore Gold, an adviser to the prime
minister.

He said: "In a region where ballistic missiles are proliferating there
is a
limit to how far our country can voluntarily erode the credibility of
its
deterrence."

During the Gulf war, 40 Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israel, but did
little
damage and two people died of shock. Despite threats from Saddam to
"burn
half of Israel", he did not use biological or chemical weapons and had
no
serviceable nuclear warheads.

In that conflict, the US was fighting alongside an international
coalition
including Egypt, Syria and other Arab states, and the alliance would
have
fallen apart instantly if Israel were seen to be actively
participating.

The Israeli air force was not granted access to codes that would
enable it to
be recognised as members of the alliance. This time, however, there is
no
coalition to be blown apart.

The 1991 experience left a deep scar on many Israelis, as they huddled
together in their gas masks in expectation of chemical attack.

Logically the coming conflict should be even more frightening for
Israelis,
as Saddam is not being given the chance to survive so he might as well
use
every weapon in his arsenal.

But Israelis are strangely calm. There is a feeling that the country
escaped
lightly 11 years ago, and has had a decade to improve its defences.

A new Israeli-American anti-missile system, Arrow-2, is being
deployed. It
will replace the US Patriot missile system, which served as a
psychological
boost, but ultimately proved ineffective in destroying incoming
missiles
before they reached Israel.

The government is preparing smallpox vaccine to inoculate the whole
country,
in case of biological attack.

But the most basic reason for calm is that most Israelis are already
saturated with worry about the Palestinian uprising, and the economic
slump
that has stemmed from it, and have no energy to fear a conflict that
is not
yet on their doorstep.

--------------------------
MiD-EasT RealitieS - http://www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: (202) 362-5266
Fax: (815) 366-0800
Email: MER@MiddleEast.Org

To subscribe free to MER email to MERList@MiddleEast.Org with subject
SUBSCRIBE

To unsubscribe email to MERList@MiddleEast.Org
with subject UNSUBSCRIBE

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 05:57:57 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank,

>I further contend that this has never been about liberty or
>self-determination.

C'mon, Frank! Who *ever* said that this was about liberty or
self-determination (other than, perhaps for Americans)? Hunh? Did Bush
ever say that? Cheney? Rush Limbaugh? George Will? Robert Novak? *ANY*
conservative commentator or politician? *ANY* commentator or politician
who was speaking in favor of action? I suppose you picked this up from
some commentator or politician who opposes war with Iraq.

Frank, this is one of the sorriest strawman arguments I've ever seen! I
can't believe it's come from you!

Bush says he wants to go after Iraq in self-defense! And the articles you
quoted actually support that position. They say that Iraq is planning to
attack civilians in a state that is not involved in the planned
attack! And before you give me a bunch of BS about how Israel really *is*
involved, consider this: if Iraq was planning to "defend" itself from its
neighbors who might be involved in the planned attack, then they'd be
considering attacking Turkey or Kuwait--two countries publicly identified
as being ready to help us.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:37:00 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> C'mon, Frank! Who *ever* said that this was about liberty or
> self-determination (other than, perhaps for Americans)? Hunh? Did Bush
> ever say that? Cheney? Rush Limbaugh? George Will? Robert Novak?
*ANY*
> conservative commentator or politician? *ANY* commentator or politician
> who was speaking in favor of action? I suppose you picked this up from
> some commentator or politician who opposes war with Iraq.

Well, if the matter isn't about liberty, or self determination, then
why are we entertaining a unilateral first strike against a nation who
is not in a position to threaten the US?

> Frank, this is one of the sorriest strawman arguments I've ever seen! I
> can't believe it's come from you!

Well, I didn't write the article (so it didn't come from me), although
I did write a few personal comments as an in introduction before
forwarding it.

> Bush says he wants to go after Iraq in self-defense!

Great! Then if that is the case, and since Iraq is in no way capable
of launching an attack on the US, then this is the best reason
imaginable to impeach the Shrub Regime<tm> now, and end this
aggression we call 'the war on terror' now before we lose any
remaining credibility we might still have in foreign relations.

> And the articles you
> quoted actually support that position.

I didn't quote anything. I forwarded the article in total.

> They say that Iraq is planning to
> attack civilians in a state that is not involved in the planned
> attack! And before you give me a bunch of BS about how Israel really *is*
> involved, consider this: if Iraq was planning to "defend" itself from its
> neighbors who might be involved in the planned attack, then they'd be
> considering attacking Turkey or Kuwait--two countries publicly identified
> as being ready to help us.

I guess we really don't know what the Iraq regime has in mind, if it
chooses a first strike to avoid the build-up of US military personnel
and equipment. Iraq doesn't advertise such things as openly as the US
is doing, through controlled leaks and disinformation.

By the way, whether or not you might agree with the article, that's
one thing, but to suggest as you do that other opinions are
irrelevant, or even of a strawman caricature, is simply an attempt to
limit debate on a matter of urgent necessity, vis-a-vis: is the US
governmentally justified in carrying out a pre-emptive aggressive
first strike against any nation that does not threaten the US? I
strongly suggest it is immoral and would be yet another tragic
disaster, a disaster that we will pay for in spades it we follow
through against the entire objection of world opinion, including our
so-called allies.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: 15 Aug 2002 12:22:53 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 21:24, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> I just received this press release moments ago, and believe that it is
> time sensitive to pass it along prior to the outbreak of any
> conflagration in the Middle East that may have greater consequences
> than anything either the Shrub Regime<tm> and the news media moguls
> have led us to believe this far.

Heh, when I read the subject line, I thought it was about Maine.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 22:03:24 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank,
>Greetings again Lowell!
> > C'mon, Frank! Who *ever* said that this was about liberty or
> > self-determination (other than, perhaps for Americans)? Hunh? Did Bush
> > ever say that? Cheney? Rush Limbaugh? George Will? Robert Novak?
*ANY*
> > conservative commentator or politician? *ANY* commentator or politician
> > who was speaking in favor of action? I suppose you picked this up from
> > some commentator or politician who opposes war with Iraq.
>
>Well, if the matter isn't about liberty, or self determination, then
>why are we entertaining a unilateral first strike against a nation who
>is not in a position to threaten the US?

See comment after next.

> > Frank, this is one of the sorriest strawman arguments I've ever seen! I
> > can't believe it's come from you!
>
>Well, I didn't write the article (so it didn't come from me), although
>I did write a few personal comments as an in introduction before
>forwarding it.

And it was specifically your comments that I was responding to.

> > Bush says he wants to go after Iraq in self-defense!
>
>Great! Then if that is the case, and since Iraq is in no way capable
>of launching an attack on the US, then this is the best reason
>imaginable to impeach the Shrub Regime<tm> now, and end this
>aggression we call 'the war on terror' now before we lose any
>remaining credibility we might still have in foreign relations.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Iraq is in no way capable of launching an attack on the
US? How do you get that? Didn't you even learn anything from 9-11? No
wait! Let...me...guess. You think that because there has been no
connection established between Iraq and the 9-11 hijackers or between Al
Qaida and Iraq, that means "Iraq is in no way capable of launching an
attack on the US!" Did I get that right? No? Do I get another
guess? How about this: you think that terrorist-style attacks "don't
count" and so since Iraq has no missiles (or planes) capable of reaching
the US, that means that "Iraq is in no way capable of launching an attack
on the US!"

> > And the articles you
> > quoted actually support that position.
>
>I didn't quote anything. I forwarded the article in total.

"Quoting" does not necessarily imply selectivity beyond having selected the
article. So what I meant by "quoted" encompasses what you meant by
"forwarded." I wouldn't have bothered with this except that what I said
originally is important for my next comment. You "forwarded" an article
which supports the position that going after Iraq is legitimate
self-defense because, as I said earlier:

> > They say that Iraq is planning to
> > attack civilians in a state that is not involved in the planned
> > attack! And before you give me a bunch of BS about how Israel really
*is*
> > involved, consider this: if Iraq was planning to "defend" itself from
its
> > neighbors who might be involved in the planned attack, then they'd be
> > considering attacking Turkey or Kuwait--two countries publicly
identified
> > as being ready to help us.
>
>I guess we really don't know what the Iraq regime has in mind, if it
>chooses a first strike to avoid the build-up of US military personnel
>and equipment. Iraq doesn't advertise such things as openly as the US
>is doing, through controlled leaks and disinformation.

But apparently the author of the piece you "forwarded" thought that Iraq
would attack Israel, but not Turkey or Kuwait. You seemed to think that
article supported your opinion (and the author apparently did think that
Iraq would attack Israel but not Turkey or Kuwait), but the author's claim,
in fact, supports the President's opinion that we need to go after Iraq in
self-defense.

>By the way, whether or not you might agree with the article, that's
>one thing, but to suggest as you do that other opinions are
>irrelevant, or even of a strawman caricature, is simply an attempt to
>limit debate on a matter of urgent necessity, vis-a-vis: is the US
>governmentally justified in carrying out a pre-emptive aggressive
>first strike against any nation that does not threaten the US?

Ooh! Now I'm trying to censor? Naw. It's just that the original post was
ridiculous, illogical and, yes, you set up a strawman that you had fun
pummelling. There are some serious arguments against going to war with
Iraq and while I might disagree with them, if they were presented, I would
treat them seriously. The trouble is that I wasn't responding to serious
arguments. Oh, you may have intended them seriously enough, but the
arguments themselves were a joke. First you claimed something that wasn't
true (that Bush was going to war for "liberty" or "self-determination") and
then had fun poking holes in this supposed argument. In my Logic class,
this was called a "strawman argument". (I'm supposed to treat something
based on fiction as a serious argument?)

Then, I pointed out that you had "forwarded" articles which made claims
that actually supported the idea that Bush was acting (as he had said) in
"self-defense" of the US. This means that your post was illogical because
it provided less evidence to support your stated opinion than a contrary
one!

> I
>strongly suggest it is immoral and would be yet another tragic
>disaster, a disaster that we will pay for in spades it we follow
>through against the entire objection of world opinion, including our
>so-called allies.

Again, based in part on the "evidence" (such as it is) from the articles
you forwarded (which I was originally responding to): I strongly suggest it
is immoral and would be yet another tragic disaster, a disaster that we
will pay for in spades if we *don't* follow through--even if it is against
the entire objection of world opinion (which it is not) including some of
our so-called "enemies". ;-)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: An interesting quote sent my way
Date: 14 Aug 2002 09:15:05 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S., and
most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their
Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use. This
marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations with
Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason to
outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."

---Excerpt from the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger, director
at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate in
1937.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: An interesting quote sent my way
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 10:19:26 -0600
From: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I, for one, feel quite slighted that nobody wanted to
protect
ME from seeking sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers
and others... but I guess they inadvertently did with their
highly successful marijuana bans.

Thank you for that quote. It actually has numerous points
of humor. I, by the way, am a BIG jazz fan...

Ted

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Anderson" <bill@libc.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: An interesting quote sent my way

: "There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the U.S.,
and
: most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers.
Their
: Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana use.
This
: marijuana can cause white women to seek sexual relations
with
: Negroes, entertainers and any others... The primary reason
to
: outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races."
:
: ---Excerpt from the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger,
director
: at the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, before the U.S. Senate
in
: 1937.
:
: --
: Bill Anderson
: Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
: Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
: Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).
:
:
: ----------------------------------------------------------
---------
: LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
:
: To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
: To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
: Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
: Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
:
: URLs for Liberty Northwest:
: Archives and Polls:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
: Liberty Northwest Main Page:
http://www.liberty-northwest.org
: ----------------------------------------------------------
---------
:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Who won the cold war?
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 18:02:38 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:

> Gorbechev was really the catalyst for a rapidly changing Soviet state,
> [...] Russia had patriots with courage and vision [...] Individuals
> such as Gorbechev, Yeltsen and Putin were all, in their own way,
> remarkable individuals who had great vision for change.
>
> We give Ronald Reagan too much credit for the demise of the Soviet
> state and ending the cold war. I believe obviously Gorbechev's
> advances and openness to the west helped facilitate the changes that
> eventually were made. He also was more open to democratic
> self-determination in the eastern block than any of his predecessors.

I think this is a remarkable misunderstanding. Giving Gorbachev the
credit for the fall of the USSR is turning history on its head.
Gorbachev was not a democrat, he was a dedicated communist, who was
trying to save the USSR, not destroy it. His perestroika program
was no different than Lenin's NEP, a temporary measure to induce some
economic growth, which would end in a clampdown that would restore
the USSR to its former glory. Fortunately, this plan failed. From
Gorbachev's POV, perestroika was like chemotherapy. In chemo, the
intent is to poison the patient just enough to kill the cancerous cells,
and then stop the process before the patient dies too, but sometimes the
process runs away and the patient dies.

The reasons the USSR collapsed are numerous, but almost all of them
were the result of the actions of the USA, mostly those of Reagan:
* deregulating oil prices (Carter)
* SDI (Reagan)
* Defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan (Reagan)
* A new US willingness to stand up to aggression (Reagan)

The people of Eastern Europe rose up because they knew that the Red
Army could be defeated, and because they trusted that the new USA
would not allow them to be crushed as they had been every other time
they rebelled. Gorbachev was *forced* to watch the rebellion and
not crush it, because he didn't have the resources to fight it, his
army was demoralised, and he couldn't be sure that the USA wouldn't
intervene militarily to stop him.

--
Zev Sero "It is a great mistake to learn from history.
zsero@free-market.net There is nothing to learn from history."
Shimon Peres (Ma'ariv interview, 1993)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 14 Aug 2002 17:33:22 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 16:02, Zev Sero wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
> > Gorbechev was really the catalyst for a rapidly changing Soviet state,
> > [...] Russia had patriots with courage and vision [...] Individuals
> > such as Gorbechev, Yeltsen and Putin were all, in their own way,
> > remarkable individuals who had great vision for change.
> >
> > We give Ronald Reagan too much credit for the demise of the Soviet
> > state and ending the cold war. I believe obviously Gorbechev's
> > advances and openness to the west helped facilitate the changes that
> > eventually were made. He also was more open to democratic
> > self-determination in the eastern block than any of his predecessors.
>
> I think this is a remarkable misunderstanding. Giving Gorbachev the
> credit for the fall of the USSR is turning history on its head.

I have to agree with you completely here, Zev. "Gorby" is not where the
credit is due.

> Gorbachev was not a democrat, he was a dedicated communist, who was
> trying to save the USSR, not destroy it. His perestroika program
> was no different than Lenin's NEP, a temporary measure to induce some
> economic growth, which would end in a clampdown that would restore
> the USSR to its former glory. Fortunately, this plan failed. From
> Gorbachev's POV, perestroika was like chemotherapy. In chemo, the
> intent is to poison the patient just enough to kill the cancerous cells,
> and then stop the process before the patient dies too, but sometimes the
> process runs away and the patient dies.
>
> The reasons the USSR collapsed are numerous, but almost all of them
> were the result of the actions of the USA, mostly those of Reagan:
> * deregulating oil prices (Carter)
> * SDI (Reagan)
> * Defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan (Reagan)
> * A new US willingness to stand up to aggression (Reagan)
>
> The people of Eastern Europe rose up because they knew that the Red
> Army could be defeated, and because they trusted that the new USA
> would not allow them to be crushed as they had been every other time
> they rebelled. Gorbachev was *forced* to watch the rebellion and
> not crush it, because he didn't have the resources to fight it, his
> army was demoralised, and he couldn't be sure that the USA wouldn't
> intervene militarily to stop him.

Bingo. As we can see by analyzing the end of the Cold War, it was
"bandwagoning" that toppled the USSR in the end. America's military had
been in decline for a long time (and I am not talking mere soldier
numbers), which led to the increasing power of the USSR. As this turned
around (starting, yes, with Vietnam), you could see the states "rebel"
into neutrality, and as America's military and economic ability returned
and grew, they became "supporters" of the U.S.. It was this that ended
the cold war. The previous "minimal realist" theory of balance of power
failed to be shown accurate, due in no small part to ignoring
bandwagoning. This is one reason Libertarianism does not apply well to
international politics. The behavior and tendencies are different, the
motivations are different, and in the end the means to achieve results
are different.

That is not to say I support military takeovers and invasions, etc.,
just to say that there is, INSHMO, a different set of realities in
international politics, that a "pure" libertarian answer to intrastate
politics does not address, and is ill-equipped to handle.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:21:17 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I think this is a remarkable misunderstanding. Giving Gorbachev the
> credit for the fall of the USSR is turning history on its head.
> Gorbachev was not a democrat, he was a dedicated communist, who was
> trying to save the USSR, not destroy it.

I didn't suggest that Gorbachev pulled off the disintegration of the
Soviet Union, but his vision of openness and reform certainly did play
a vital role in ending the Soviet CP's hegemony of the Soviet Block.
He gave the initial signals that if Poland and others democratically
opted out, that he would not oppose it. This was a remarkable shift
from earlier decades of Soviet intervention in keeping the block
together by brute force.

> His perestroika program
> was no different than Lenin's NEP, a temporary measure to induce some
> economic growth, which would end in a clampdown that would restore
> the USSR to its former glory.

There is nothing to suggest that he would have done that. This is
entirely speculative, but I personally believe that evidence suggests
that he would not have done so. To underscore this, Gorbechev was no
hero to the hardline communists who believed his reforms were
dangerous to their interests, which is why the failed coup attempt to
remove him. That's when Yeltsen stepped in and ended the coup, and at
that point, communist control in the USSR when into decline and
disfavour.

> Fortunately, this plan failed.

That's presuming that he even had such a plan. I do not presume that
he did, and even again suggest that this falls in the face of the
communist hardliner's attempt to boot him out in the failed coup
attempt. Historically, it's pretty obvious that Gorbechev had no
interests at all in curtailing his doctrine of openness and
restructuring, hoping to put a new face on communism and make it work.

I will admit that Gorbechev wanted to save communism, not end it. It
was Yeltsen who really put an end to communist hegemony in the Soviet
Union by abolishing the CP's monopoly and control on power. Now THAT
took a lot of guts, particularly at that volatile time in Soviet
history. It could have backfired, and certainly efforts were underway
to reverse Yeltsen's liberalization efforts toward a pluralistic
democracy. I submit again, as I wrote last time, that Yeltsen also
had the vision to know when his time was up, and peacefully
transferred power to Vladimir Putin, who subsequently won in an open
free election alongside many new political parties and ideals.

> From
> Gorbachev's POV, perestroika was like chemotherapy. In chemo, the
> intent is to poison the patient just enough to kill the cancerous cells,
> and then stop the process before the patient dies too, but sometimes the
> process runs away and the patient dies.

You are assuming that might be the case. On the contrary, I believe
history does not in any way support that has probable fact.

> The reasons the USSR collapsed are numerous, but almost all of them
> were the result of the actions of the USA, mostly those of Reagan:

Yea, to many that is the politically correct history, mostly those on
the far right in US politics. The USSR changed when men of vision
knew the old ways were no longer effective, and also knew that the
people wanted change and a way to come out of political, social and
economic isolation! You seem to conveniently leave all of this out.

> * deregulating oil prices (Carter)
> * SDI (Reagan)
> * Defeating the Red Army in Afghanistan (Reagan)
> * A new US willingness to stand up to aggression (Reagan)

None of this is primary to the demise of the Soviet Union. Gorbechev
was the Man of the Decade, not Ronald Reagan, contrary to the far
right's consternation. History clearly reveals that Gorbechev was the
communist hardliner's worst enemy in their effort to maintain their
grip on power! The only interesting sidebar here is that Gorbechev
most likely did not see his efforts leading to the dissolution of the
Soviet empire as it eventually did.

> The people of Eastern Europe rose up because they knew that the Red
> Army could be defeated, and because they trusted that the new USA
> would not allow them to be crushed as they had been every other time
> they rebelled.

Not necessarily, and again probably not. Gorbechev had already
signalled that he would not intervene to maintain Soviet hegemony in
eastern Europe should they decide to peacefully leave the Warsaw Pact
alliance! He certainly WOULD NOT have signalled such had he not
believed that eastern Europeans might take that as an opportunity to
actually follow through. Eastern Europeans rightly calculated that
Gorbechev's signals were genuine.

> Gorbachev was *forced* to watch the rebellion and
> not crush it, because he didn't have the resources to fight it, his
> army was demoralised, and he couldn't be sure that the USA wouldn't
> intervene militarily to stop him.

Although you might wish that WAS the case, there is nothing to suggest
that Gorbechev could have, if he wanted and chose to, make a quick
example out of Poland, and send a message that any effort to
destabilize the Warsaw Block would not be tolerated, which would have
effectively ended other states quickly following suit. He didn't do
that, but I submit he certainly could have. He signalled that he
would not, which was what really opened the door to the rapid
destruction of the Soviet Block in eastern Europe, and eventually the
Soviet Union itself.

As a subset to this, Gorbechev has never renounced communism to this
day. He probably still believes communism could work under a reformed
and open manner alongside other ideologies in an open market. And,
there is some evidence indeed that suggests that it can, as Allende in
Chile suggests that communists can be elected to power in free
elections. On the other hand, Gorbechev is by far the most liberal of
any previous leader of the former Soviet Union. To compare him with
Lenin's machinations is a bit unfair to Gorbechev's goals and
character, at least which I consider to have been rather sincere and
genuine at the time. If he weren't sincere, he would not have drawn
the disdain and ire of the hardline communist guard entrenched in the
Soviet apparatus.

All of which is why I consider several top leaders in the last stages
of the Soviet experiment to have been very special, beginning with
Gorbechev. It took a lot of guts, vision, and strength of character
and commitment, to effectively bring about what we have today in
eastern Europe and the states that formerly made up the Soviet
empire. Although the communists certainly haven't totally withered
away, for the most part, self-determination and democratic pluralism
has replaced despotism and brutal tyranny. There is a tremendous
trend toward individual, social and economic freedom that has was
never the case prior to Gorbechev, Yeltsen and Putin.

I wish I could say the same in the case of Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton
and the Shrub Regime(tm>.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:22:20 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I think I've a fair idea of what Gorbachev was about, and the thing to
remember is that the USSR, despite what some say, was not a dictatorship.
They had politics, just not of the kind we're used to. The power in the
USSR tended not to flow thru formal channels with defined powers, but via
influence and intrigue. Think of office politics in a big business; now
imagine that business doesn't have to make money.

Gorbachev, like his predecessors, did not hold unlimited power. His
predecessors held various posts, and typically spent years in office
building up their influence even after they were viewed as supreme. Supreme
they were, in that nobody overall held MORE power & influence, but supreme
is far from infinite.

When Gorbachev ascended to his leadership, as soon as he thought he could
get away with it, he initiated the policies of openness and restructuring in
an attempt to blow away the people he saw as bottlenecks blocking the path
to improvements, and to greater personal control by himself. He thought
that by exposing them, greater power could be brought to bear against them.
He was right, but underestimated their power to get back at him and the
system. So basically what he accomplished was merely to weaken the
political ties in the whole system, shaking up people's loyalties and
thereby making it less likely anything could actually get done.

Possibly Gorbachev could've succeeded had he spent longer slowly
consolidating his power before initiating his reforms. I suspect that after
the Andropov experience (Bob Falk had him pegged as a British agent) they
might've been willing to let him consolidate for few years, but he reached
for too much too fast by non-established channels.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 16 Aug 2002 03:22:48 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 01:17, larry fullmer wrote:
> Bill,
>
> interspersed below:
>
> on 8/15/02 12:23 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 05:00, Frank Reichert wrote:
> >
> >> The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
> >> would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won the
> >> cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
> >> increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual
> >
> > Next thing we'll see is you claiming the south won the Civil War, since
> > they benefited from the following economic progress and sociological
> > advances. Or that Japan won WWII because of the economic boom they made
> > after the end of it. Talk about revisionism!
>
> i believe frank was speaking retorically; wanting to point out the clear
> totalitarian risk in the implications of currents u.s. government policy.
> it does the u.s. little good to 'defeat' communism if it adopts policies
> which could lead to stalinism. that was frank's point, bill, sorry you
> missed it.

I've learned with Frank to never assume he speaks rhetorically.

> >
> > To say the Soviet Union won the cold war is to ignore what the cold war
> > _was_. The cold war was the USSR wanting to expand it's empire, and the
> > US wanting to prevent that.
>
> why did the u.s. wanna prevent that, bill?? to save liberty? nope.

To save their own, yes, to give it to others, no. The soviet union's
leaders (I use the term loosely) had a clear and expressed intent and
desire for world domination. To that end, as it included us, our leaders
were duty-bound to take steps to prevent it. Does that justify
everything? Nope. Is it a more clear and accurate view of the Cold War?
Yes.

> it was government empire against government empire. next i figure you'll

Yes, it was.

> tell us vietnam was a war for liberty, as is the u.s. involvement in
> columbia, the next vietnam. u.s. foriegn policy has been the politics of
> empire, not liberty. ***not liberty***!! - unless you wanna claim the
shah
> of iran was promoting liberty with the savak secret police.

Strawman, Larry. I made no such assertions, or anything close to them.
not all wars are about liberty, in fact most are not.

>
> > It was not about central planning,
>
> then why the hell did the u.s. oppose the soviets? but you're right, that

See above.

> was just the cover. it was about power and who gets it, not about
liberty.

It was about many things, not one single item. Few conflicts are *ever*
about a dingle item. The conflict was, however, an ideological one. Most
Americans wanted to see the Cold War be one where we led some global
democratic revolution. Fortunately for us, that was keep out of it, and
containment was the focus on our side. The resulting democracy wave that
followed the end of the Cold War is by-product, not a purpose.

>
> > communism, capitalism, or republicanism or democracy. The Soviets
> > wanted to rule the world. The US wanted to prevent that. Have you
> > forgotten the policies of "containment" and "limited containment"?
>
> i remember them well, empire against empire, liberty missing from the
> equation.

For the most part, yes. Not *ALL* things are about liberty, Larry. Nor
should all things.

>
> >
> > Contrary to some here, not one man was responsible for the fall of the
> > Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was the culmination of a
> > long series of events.
>
> gorby was a true hero, as i see it, but you're right, it was not a "man"
> it was levis, rock music, and a yearning for liberty, AND THE ABJECT
> FAILURE OF CENTRAL PLANNING - THAT **ALWAYS** A FAILURE, GIVEN TIME.

Actually, it was more basic than that, They wanted food and basic needs.
In fact, meeting this is the first step toward liberty. History shows
that a populace that moves up Maslow's pyramid seeks greater and greater
personal liberty.

> >
> > These Gorbasms are truly amazing. I've seen it claimed that he was
> > responsible for the growth of the Internet! HAH!
>
> GORBASMS?? pretty quick, bill, and funny. still, gorbachev had the power
> to be a stalin. he chose not too, and much better than that. much
better!!

I don't think he had that power. At one point he was the subject of a
failed coup because it was believed he was going to of that. That said,
yes he did make several moves that aided the progress of change, nobody
is denying that. What is being denied is that claim he was solely
responsible, and that the host of things that contributed to the fall of
the USSR are being ignored and pushed aside for the cult of personality.

I'd like to claim originality with "Gorbasms", but I can not.

>
> >
> > To say that any one person, Reagan or Gorbachev, was responsible for the
> > conclusion of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR is to succumb to the
> > Cult of Personality, and ignore reality.
> >
>
> well, bill, as i read you, the reality you are ignoring, surprisingly for
a
> libertarian, is that it was the abscense of liberty which did in the
soviets
> and it did not have squat to do with the imperialism of the u.s.,
> or the massive tax-funded military spending of reagan.

Not true, Larry. In *small* demands, communism can hold out for quite
some time, but it needs to expand to sustain itself, just like Social
Security. halting the advance of communism was a direct contributor to
it's demise (sooner rather than later). As America's military might
grew, the USSR had to exceed it in order to stand a chance at conquering
further territories. History and analysis shows that smaller countries
will "side" with a larger one they feel can protect it the most. As the
USSR's military growth surpassed that of the US (for a time, it did),
more and more "satellites" sided with the USSR, especially with the US
staying out of it.

As America's military power grew, and her apparent nerve to use it
increased, these states went neutral, hedging their bets.As the USSR's
went into decline compared the the US', they switched their allegiances.
As this occurred, the resources available to the communist controls and
central planning in the USSR dwindled, and it become readily apparent
even to those within the Soviet Union.

This led to the people insisting on their basic necessities, and hence a
change in the system. Contributing to this was Gorbachev's decision to
not continue the military suppression of revolts. These revolts came
about about in no small part due to the revolutionaries' belief that
they would not be let down by the Americans.

Gorbachev severely underestimated the effect a small amount of history
and economic power a little capitalism makes. He desired to keep
communism, but gain the free market. In this, was in his eyes, his
greatest failure. He failed to recognize what history has taught us, as
mentioned above, about economic freedom turning into a demand for
personal and civil freedoms.

This is why one of our most powerful weapons is economic freedom, and I
can see you recognize that. What must be done, however, is to realize
that economic freedom alone is not the solution. We must take a critical
eye to history, and look beyond the headlines. When doing that, and
seeing what was going on behind the scenes, we can see what must be done
to effect further change here and abroad. There is no magic bullet,
there is no mythical savior.

If Libertarians were elected to all federal elective offices available
for two straight elections, it would still take a decade or more to make
the changes we need done.

Now, we know the Soviet System would have eventually collapsed of it's
own accord, for two reasons.

First, central planning is increasingly difficult the larger the scale
is. A state that is practicing central planning requires expansion in
order to support the inefficiencies of the system. It is a nasty circle;
as the size grows, so does the inefficiency. So eventually, it would
have failed, since it would have no resources left when it conquered the
planet (if it made it that far).

Second, as the region controlled increases, the inefficiencies lead to
increased revolts, increased pressure for change, and lesser control
over the populace. Again, growth/expansion of the state is a requirement
for "successful" central planning/communism/socialism, so this effect is
unavoidable, and further hastens the inevitable failure of the system.
As the "unrest and dissidence" increases, the state has to use more
resources to quell it, contributing to the growth requirement.

This latter cause is of particular note in the fall of the USSR. Their
troops, quite frankly, sucked and were underpaid, underfed,
undersupplied, and had atrocious moral. I see nothing to indicate the
resources were there for Gorbachev to quash the rebellions, had he
desired or decided to. At some point, the state has not the resources to
crush rebellion.

When that happens, it is the first domino.

The question then becomes, why not wait for the inevitable collapse?
Well, given that Communism is antithetical to Liberty, I think that
answer should be obvious here.

Anyway, need to go sleep.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:03:59 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill@libc.org wrote in small part:

>If Libertarians were elected to all federal elective offices
>available for two straight elections, it would still take a decade
>or more to make the changes we need done.

Could you please elaborate?

I know one area of change that electing federal AND state office holders to
would make practically no difference to, and it's a vastly important one:
tort and contract law. Oh, I'm sure they could pass blunt and ad hoc
changes to try to reform things in certain areas (and would mostly DEform
them IMO), but not get at the system that's at fault.

I, Inert Surly Boy,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 17 Aug 2002 11:29:15 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 07:55, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings Robert!
>
> Robert Goodman wrote to Larry Fullmer...
>
> Larry Fullmer wrote:
> > lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote in part:
> > >gorbachev had the power to be a stalin.
>
> You replied:
> > What made you think that?
>
> History, for one thing. Soviet history. You can even go back much
> further and talk about Czarist history. Gorbechev was the man in
> charge. He spoke for the state. What Larry said was quite relevant,
> he chose a very different line, and he certainly could have invoked
> whatever power was available in the soviet state to crush Poland,
> again.
>
> Probably a better question, addressed to you. How do you account for
> Gorbechev becoming the acceptable "darling" in the west? Man of the
> Decade in TIME magazine, for example?

How do you account for Stalin, Hitler, Kruschev and the Ayatollah
Khomeini being Time's Man of the Year? By your line of argument, they
must have also been visionaries.

> The leader of an environmental
> think tank, based in San Francisco?

Many/most of those have socialist/communist tendencies and beliefs. not
much to explain there.

> An acceptable spokesman for
> Democratic Reform, amongst other things? Face it, Gorbechev was a

Cult of Personality.

> visionary, although from the socialist/communist bent. I am not
> convinced that YOU can convince me that he was focused upon
> totalitarian "soviet style" utilitarianism to create its polar
> objectives, as the Soviet empire previously held as its core.

Some of the things you have failed to mention are his frequent refusals
to support or accept any of the various "Democrat Reform" groups that
sprung up during his short tenure, the fact that he _did_ use the
military to stomp a revolution attempt, these are not deeds in
isolation; they are in sync with his own words at various times.

As far as Gorbachev being Communist, yes. In march of this year, the BBC
had him on to answer questions from people. He claimed it was not
Communism but the lack of it that failed the Soviets. He also said that
what he was doing was trying to prevent the breakup of the Soviet Union.
he said that they could see the breakup coming, and they were trying to
prevent it, not cause it or support it. He even gripes about Yeltsin,
something many Russians to this day do. Yeltsin was/is no visionary, nor
is he a good icon for democratic reform. Yeltsin was very power hungry,
and his rule was quite corrupt. Have we forgotten his two attempts to
dissolve the Russian parliament, or the closing of the KGB archives and
historical archives, the abandonment of law?

Despite what some here may believe, the military buildup and contention
between the US and the USSR is a primary factor in the dissolution of
the Soviet Empire. The Soviet economy was 80% military. Think about it.
The reforms were driven by people who wanted to eat, to have clothing
(Levi's or not, they wanted clothing to stay warm), toiletries, and
household supplies that most here take for granted. Eighty percent of
the economy geared toward the military, leaving a mere 20% to account
for life support of the people, will bankrupt nearly any nation. Our M-I
Complex had nothing on theirs.

The Soviet Empire fell because it was focused, undeniably, on conquest.
There are limitations to the sustainability of that kind of a focus;
twenty years ago, the USSR ran headlong into those.. The only thing that
was up to the leaders in the late eighties and early nineties, was how
hard the landing would be. It was not up to them to make the changes. As
Gorbachev himself has said, the change was inevitable.

The same path is being followed here in the US, with the government's
increasing involvement in the economy. Within the next two decades (with
current trends of government), we will be in a similar situation. The
only question of import to the leaders at that time will be how to land.
Just as with the Gorbachev in the eighties, the attempts will likely be
done in the name of preventing the fall, of defending the status quo.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: The New American - August 26, 2002 Issue
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:41:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

The following articles from the August 26, 2002 issue of The New
American
are now available online.

----------------------------------------
The August 26, 2002 issue is available at:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/08-26-2002/vo18no17.htm
----------------------------------------

Mishandling "The People’s Money"
Not even the most corrupt "corporate kingpin" can match the federal
government’s achievements in financial dishonesty and bookkeeping
fraud.

Money and Debt

The Goodness of America

----------------------------------------

Be sure to introduce friends and family who may be interested in these
issues to The New American by forwarding this email or using the email
forwarding link on these articles.

----------------------------------------
You are receiving this email alert because you have subscribed to The
New American Alert Network as: libnw@usa.net

To subscribe, unsubscribe or to change your email address, please go
to:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/contact/alert.htm

The New American
http://www.thenewamerican.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: From Washington State - A Tale of Terror
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 12:58:46 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Well folks, it's finally here, albeit in early embryonic form. The
centralized police state gestapo, widely known in its benevolent
benign language as "The Department of Homeland Security", is beginning
to make inroads in terrorizing innocent American citizens and their
families, including in this case at least, several small children all
under the age of six years old!

Here indeed is a real horror story, but one that we should probably
begin getting used to hearing, as this is obviously just an early
prelude of yet greater horror and abuse to come out of the Shrub
Regime's<tm> penchant to create a national climate of terror,
distrust, and illegal detentions without trial.

Kindest regards,
Frank

http://www.citizenspokane.com/garrisonstate.htm

Homeland Security

the garrison state

>From Washington State comes another instructive vignette regarding the
relentless encroachment of the "homeland security" garrison state. One
afternoon in mid-July, with temperatures in Yakima reaching 117
degrees,
Elizabeth Myer was pulled over by a policeman for having an expired
tag on
her Chevy Suburban (the result of an oversight, rather than criminal
intent
or misplaced political zealotry). During the routine stop, the officer
noticed that there was an unloaded ammo magazine for a semi-automatic
rifle
on the dashboard. The officer asked for permission to search the
vehicle,
presumably to check for weapons. Elizabeth declined permission,
assuring the
officer that the magazine was empty and that she wasn't carrying any
other
weapons.

The officer, determined to search the vehicle, detained Elizabeth and
her
four young children (all of whom are six years or younger) in the
Suburban
for over an hour and a half. Insisting that the young mother posed a
"flight
risk," the officer refused to allow her to turn the ignition key to
run the
air conditioner. Jim Myer, Elizabeth's husband, told Review of the
News
Online: "It was 117 degrees that day, and in other circumstances a
mother
who left her small children out in that weather for an hour and a half
would
be charged with child abuse. But I guess it's just fine when
government
people do it." Myer reported that all four of their children had to be
treated for heat stroke.

What distinguishes this story from other ­ unfortunately common ­
accounts
of government abuse of citizens is the "homeland security" rationale
invoked
by law enforcement officials as justification. According to Jim Myer,
while
his wife and tiny children were illegally detained and being tortured,
the
traffic stop was being examined as a "homeland security" matter by a
Washington Tri-Agency Counter-Terrorism Task Force. Supposedly they
were
concerned that Elizabeth Myer was somehow involved in a nearby
incident
involving illegal fully automatic rifles. Under normal circumstances,
an
officer making a traffic stop involving a young suburban housewife and
her
four tiny children would be able to exercise better judgment ­ but in
this
instance, the rationale of "homeland defense" became irresistible.

Jim Myer, it should be noted, is a world-class sport shooter who
provides
marksmanship training to local, state, and federal law enforcement
agents.
He is exceptionally well versed in firearms laws and fastidiously
obeys
firearms laws, however asinine or opaque their provisions may be.
Nonetheless, shortly after his wife's punitive detention, Myer
received a
visit from the ATF. "They were all over our house, demanding to see
every
gun we have," Myer told Review of the News Online. When Myer asked
about the
visit, he was told repeatedly that it was being treated as a matter of
"homeland security."

As this commentary is being prepared, Myer and his family are still
under
investigation. Because of arcane provisions in laws governing public
disclosure of such investigations, Myer will not be able to learn the
details of the case being compiled against him until the case is
closed.
(Parenthetically, the National Rifle Association, which was contacted
by
Myer for legal help, told him that they are only interested in
"sporting
firearms law" ­ and that his case didn't qualify.)

In both of these cases, the subject of official abuse by agents of the
embryonic "homeland security regime" were white, middle-class,
law-abiding
families. They fit no conceivable terrorist profile. They were engaged
in
travel as part of peaceful family pursuits. In both incidents,
security and
law enforcement personnel, invoking the threat of armed violence,
browbeat
innocent parents in front of their children. The Yakima case involved
what
could be characterized as illegal arrest and torture ­ including the
torture
of children.

Bearing all of this in mind, the prospect of a vast, centralized,
militarized, and unaccountable "homeland security" apparatus should
fill
freedom-loving Americans with mortal dread. The Bush administration
has
already claimed the power to subject individuals ­ including American
citizens ­ to open-ended military detention, with no judicial review,
as
"enemy combatants." It is seeking to abolish the Posse Comitatus
statute
forbidding the military to carry out domestic law enforcement
missions. It
is seeking to recruit tens of millions of Americans as informants for
the
regime precisely because private citizens will be able to enter
private
homes and inspect them for "suspicious" items and activities ­ and
it's a
safe bet that firearms will be high on that list.

If these measures were being carried out by Bill Clinton, the
Republican
right would be screaming itself hoarse. But because the amiable
dullard who
occupies the White House occasionally gives voice to a few
conservative
platitudes ­ provided, of course, they are written out in advance, in
small
words spelled with large letters, by one of his handlers ­ the
Republican
right has swallowed its tongue. Some of those people, in fact, are
among the
loudest voices proclaiming: "This is America now ­ shut up and get
used to
it!"

We wouldn't seem so radical if they weren't so stupid!

Norman Griggs-JBS

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: A MESSAGE FROM DAVID NOLAN, FOUNDER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:17:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: A MESSAGE FROM DAVID NOLAN, FOUNDER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 11:10:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Libertarian Party Announcements <owner-announce@lp.org>
Reply-To: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To: announce@hq.lp.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

A MESSAGE FROM DAVID NOLAN, FOUNDER OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

Dear Libertarian,

I have just made a donation at
http://www.RandforCongress.com/donate.html and would like to urge you
to also support our campaign to "Bump" Bob Barr from Congress in the
August 20th primary.

I rarely give to campaigns outside of my home state of California. But
I saw we had an opportunity in this race to send a powerful message to
anyone who still supports the War on Drugs -- that it is a lost cause,
and that politicians who support it will be voted out of office.

I ask every Libertarian to contribute to this effort, whether you can
afford $10, or $1,000. And hopefully, on August 20th, everyone who
truly
loves liberty can give a rousing cheer when Bob Barr's defeat is
announced.

And please contribute right now. The primary is one week away, and the
campaign needs your donation by tomorrow, Thursday, at 5:00PM to be
able to purchase effective advertising.

More details about our plan are in the message below.

Thank you.

David Nolan
Principal Founder of the Libertarian Party

Dear Friend of Freedom,

Would you like to see Bob Barr -- the most fanatical Drug Warrior in
Congress -- out of Congress next year?

Would you like to see him lose specifically because he is waging the
Drug War against the most helpless in our society -- medical marijuana
patients?

Can you imagine the effect of him saying to his former congressional
colleagues, "I lost because of those drug reformers?"

Would you like to fire a warning shot across the bow of every
congressional Drug Warrior, that they could be next to lose their
election?

We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to bump Bob Barr out of Congress
on
August 20, but to do so, we'll need the help of libertarians all over
the country.

Why once-in-a-lifetime? Because redistricting has put Bob Barr in a
very tight race against another Republican incumbent. The local
political pundits say the race is too close to call. A recent poll
puts
Barr behind -- but with a large number of voters still undecided.

The new district is so strongly Republican, that if Barr wins the
August 20th Republican primary, he will have a safe seat for as long
as
he wants it.

If we don't take out Bob Barr right now, he'll be around to torture
medical marijuana patients and block medical marijuana initiatives for
decades to come.

How fanatical is Bob Barr on medical marijuana? Keep reading this
message, and I'll tell you about a Barr proposal so frightening that
even then Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey called it "chilling."
It's so unbelievable, I'll tell you how you can verify it yourself.

I'll also tell you about the great candidate the Libertarian Party has
in the race, Carole Ann Rand, and how we plan to fire the final salvo
that will unseat this Congressman who believes in murdering the
critically ill in their wheelchairs.

And that is no exaggeration. As the member in Congress who is most
viscerally and energetically in support of the war on medical
marijuana
users, Barr's policies are responsible for the death of author and
AIDS
sufferer Peter McWilliams, and the torture of thousands of patients
who
could benefit from this ancient medicine.

Barr so dislikes medical marijuana, he dreamed up and got passed a
special federal law making it illegal for the District of Columbia to
even count the votes for a medical marijuana initiative that was
already printed on the ballot.

That was declared unconstitutional.

So, a year after the election, after the lawsuit outcome, D.C. was
permitted to count the votes. Lo and behold, the voters had supported
it two-to-one.

But then Barr led Congress, which holds the purse strings of the D.C.
government, to override that vote of the people, and the initiative
did
not go into effect.

Medical marijuana activists in D.C. decided they would put the
initiative on the ballot again. This time Barr wrote a federal law
forbidding anyone to circulate an initiative in D.C. on the subject of
medical marijuana.

That was also held unconstitutional.

Now that D.C. activists have gathered the signatures to once again
place a medical marijuana initiative on the ballot, Barr is already
plotting legislative maneuvers to block its implementation.

Bob Barr likes to champion himself as an advocate for privacy rights,
property rights, states' rights, free speech, free trade, and medical
rights.

Yet, time after time, he promotes policies and legislation that
trample
on those same rights he claims to protect. Barr is either the most
hypocritical or schizophrenic Congressman in Washington.

Even when Barr does something that freedom-loving Americans can
applaud, it is something that would not have been necessary in the
first place were it not for the Drug War policies that he supports.

When Barr is occasionally championing something that moves us in a
pro-
freedom direction, it is merely to undo the damage that his favorite
cause -- the Drug War -- has already inflicted on us.

Barr claims to be a fiscal conservative. Yet the Drug War is one of
the
most financially wasteful efforts in our history. We directly spend
fifty billion dollars a year just on enforcement.

One study estimated the total cost to society of the Drug War,
including such items as lost taxes, prison construction, lost wages of
those incarcerated, cost of goods stolen, and added welfare costs, at
over 400 billion dollars a year.

But it is Barr's fanatical support for the most extremist actions in
the drug war that best illustrates his misplaced priorities.

While terrorists around the globe plot more attacks against our
country, Bob Barr's most pressing priority has been arresting the most
helpless in our society -- medical marijuana patients who are just
trying to relieve the symptoms of painful and debilitating diseases.

It is at Barr's urging that the Drug Enforcement Administration has
stepped up its raids on medical cannabis clinics in California,
arresting caregivers, and throwing critically ill patients into the
street.

According to Gallup and Pew Research polls, 73% of Americans support
medical marijuana, and believe that doctors and patients should decide
about what drugs should be prescribed to treat their life-threatening
diseases, not politicians.

Barr even says on his website that we must ensure that health care
decisions are made by patients and doctors, not the government. Yet,
with blatant hypocrisy, he is the driving force in Congress preventing
just that for medical marijuana.

We send congressmen to Washington to uphold the Constitution, not to
trample it and our rights. It is time to send Bob Barr home!

Here's our plan to do just that.

Georgia's 7th congressional district has a strong "base vote" for
Libertarian candidates. In 2000, our statewide candidates averaged
from
7% to 9% of the vote in the counties that make up the 7th district. So
there are large numbers of voters there that are heeding the
Libertarian message.

Our candidate in the race, Carole Ann Rand, was the Libertarian Party
of Georgia's first candidate for governor back in 1990. She went on to
become president of the Advocates for Self-Government, a libertarian
educational foundation, where she helped teach Libertarians around the
country to be better communicators for freedom. She is now CFO of Food
Partners, a wholesale foods brokerage.

Carole Ann is sharp, photogenic, and an effective, compassionate
communicator of Libertarian ideas. Her professional credentials and
reputation for integrity make it impossible to caricature her as a
stereotypical dope-smoker. She is the ideal candidate to take on
Bob Barr.

And I'm sure that Carole Ann would want me to mention that she has
just
attended the birth of her 8th grandchild!

Although it is unusual to do so, Carole Ann is running TV ads
attacking
Bob Barr during the weeks before the August 20th Republican primary.

Have you ever seen steam coming out of a congressman's ears?

That's what's sure to be happening every time Bob Barr sees our ad,
featuring multiple sclerosis sufferer and medical cannabis user Cheryl
Miller.

In the ad, Cheryl speaks from her wheelchair about her condition, and
about how Bob Barr wants to take away the only medicine that takes
away
her pain.

And she says the brutal truth, that Bob Barr wants her in jail just
for
using her medicine.

And then she asks:

"Why would you do that to me, Bob?"

You can view the ad online at:

http://www.RandforCongress.com/

Cheryl is a very brave woman to participate in this ad. She has no
legal protection for her medical use in her home state.

But Cheryl has already proven her bravery. In 1999, in another effort
to publicize the issue, she used her medicine, marijuana that she
takes
orally, in Bob Barr's Congressional office. The federal police did not
have the nerve to arrest her in her wheelchair, so they arrested her
husband instead -- separating an invalid woman from her caregiver for
seven hours.

We believe our hard-hitting ads will damage Barr enough to ensure that
he loses the primary, so that the only way he can return to Washington
is as a lobbyist!

There is evidence that Barr is out of step with even his own strongest
supporters on medical marijuana. Let me share an anecdote with you
from
a recent debate between Barr and Libertarian talk show host Neal
Boortz.

When Boortz talked on his nationally syndicated show about Barr's
recent efforts to block medical marijuana initiatives in D.C., Barr
called him up and challenged him to a public debate. Boortz accepted.

Boortz and Barr were each given 400 tickets to distribute to their
supporters, so the crowd reaction was split evenly during the debate.

At the very end of the debate, while Barr was finishing his closing
statement, Boortz asked the moderator if he could recognize a couple
of
people in the audience. He did so, and his sidekick and Webmaster from
the talk show stood up to applause.

Barr immediately jumped in with, "Let me recognize someone in the
audience too. Everybody here who is a Bob Barr supporter stand up."

Half the audience stood up and cheered wildly, and it looked like
Boortz had made a major gaff.

But Neal jumped back with, "OK, everybody who is standing up now, if
you would send Bob Barr to arrest your mother on her deathbed if she
were using medical marijuana to ease her suffering, stay standing up."

95% of this audience, composed of Barr's strongest supporters,
immediately sat down.

They could see through his lies and his "Reefer Madness" rhetoric.

And so can the other voters, if we can get the truth out to them about
medical marijuana.

If we can prove that our plan will work on Barr, it will be a warning
shot to every Drug Warrior in Congress. This one victory could have
huge implications.

Could Barr's loss persuade -- or scare -- enough Congressmen that
we'll
see legislative relief for medical marijuana patients? We won't know
that unless we succeed at bumping Barr from office.

And we won't have really succeeded, unless Barr not only loses, but
loses when the issue of medical marijuana is strongly interjected into
the race.

$44,000 will saturate the district for the critical last week with
cable TV ads on the channels voters watch most. Each spot will average
less than $12.00.

We have already purchased over $25,000 in ads that are running right
now in the district -- but we need your help to be able to blanket the
district effectively.

For a budget of $44,000, we'll be able to run 3,666 ads!

If we raise more than $44,000, we can also buy broadcast time in the
metro Atlanta market that covers the 7th district.

Every penny you send will be a warning to Congress that the cruel war
on medical marijuana users must end!

Will you please go right now to:

http://www.RandforCongress.com/donate.html

and send the biggest warning shot possible with your best possible
donation?

Stopping Barr's congressional influence on the war on medical
marijuana
users will be like cutting off the head of a snake – the body will
wiggle for a while, but the snake will die.

We can't let the only chance we'll have to remove Barr from office
pass
by.

But we can only succeed if you help. In a race this close, every
dollar
makes a difference.

$1,000 will buy 83 ads on cable TV

$500 will buy 42 ads.

$250 will buy 21 spots.

$100 will buy 8 ads.

EVERY PENNY you donate will go to help end the nightmare of the Drug
War.

But please donate right now. The primary is only one week away. We
must
have your donation by tomorrow, Thursday at 5:00 PM in order to
purchase effective advertising.

Thank you, in advance, for your help.

Ron Crickenberger
Political Director

P.S. Unbelievably, Barr has even gone so far as to say that
free
speech and the First Amendment should not apply to people who
merely advocate drug policy reform. In a congressional committee
hearing, Barr shocked even then-current drug czar, General McCaffrey,
with his proposal that drug policy reform advocates be prosecuted
under
federal anti-racketeering RICO statutes. McCaffrey called the proposal
"chilling."

You can read the transcript at:

http://www.RandforCongress.com/

in the "Why Bump Bob Barr" section. You can also check out the
great press we have been getting for making medical marijuana a major
issue in Barr's re-election.

Then, please, hit the donate button, and make your best possible
contribution.

P.P.S. You may not have heard of Bryan Epis. The press hasn't covered
him much. But he is another victim of Bob Barr's venomous support for
the Drug War.

Bryan has just been convicted under federal law for providing medicine
to patients in a manner that was completely legal under California
state law. He is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years. Ten
years federal time for drugs -- which means no parole.

Just as in the case of Peter McWilliams, the jury was instructed to
disregard any mention of medical marijuana as a defense.

Ten years in prison for trying to help the sick and dying.

Ten years in prison without even being able to tell the jury your
primary defense.

Ten years mandatory minimum in prison for helping sick people, when
the
"suggested" minimum sentence for MURDER is only 5.5 years!

Ten YEARS!

Bryan's is the first such conviction where the feds have stepped in to
prosecute a caregiver for actions that are completely legal under
state
law.

If we don't bump Bob Barr by August 20th, it won't be the last.

Please, go to:

http://www.RandforCongress.com/donate.html

and send your best donation today.

On behalf of the patients that need your help, thank you.

Please forward this message to your friends, family, and others you
know personally who may be interested. But please don't send it
indiscriminately. "Spam" will only hurt our campaign.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Economic summit
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:27:17 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: August 14, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

Should Americans laugh or cry when Bush
practices 'fiscal restraint'? Libertarians ask

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's much-publicized refusal to spend
$5.1 billion approved by Congress is such a weak-kneed attempt at
fiscal responsibility that Libertarians don't know whether to laugh or
cry.

"Was President Bush joking when he claimed he was practicing 'fiscal
restraint' by preventing one more drop of water from falling into the
ocean of federal spending?" asked Steve Dasbach, Libertarian Party
executive director. "If so, America should laugh right along with him.
But if not, it's time to start crying, because the economy may never
recover from the big-spending Republicans and Democrats."

At the White House economic forum at Baylor University law school in
Texas on Tuesday, Bush announced that he was sending a message to
Congress that "a limited and focused government is essential to a
growing economy." That message consisted of blocking a $5.1 billion
amendment to a $28.9 billion anti-terrorism bill because much of the
money had nothing to do with protecting homeland security, Bush said.

But the idea that the president performed a heroic feat by rejecting
the microscopic amount of money is ridiculous, Libertarians say.

"If Bush is so concerned with frugal government, why did he sign the
first $2 trillion federal budget in history?" Dasbach asked. "And why
hasn't he vetoed a single appropriations bill since he took office?

"For example, the $200 billion farm bill that he so signed so
enthusiastically was 40 times as large as the amount he rejected on
Tuesday; the education bill that he and Sen. Teddy Kennedy championed
was five times as large; and the current budget for corporate welfare
is 17 times as large.

"Vetoing any of those would have been a much more genuine example of
fiscal responsibility than rejecting a paltry $5 billion."

In fact, that $5 billion amounts to just one-quarter of 1 percent of
the federal budget, Dasbach pointed out -- so it's fair to ask whether
what happened in Texas was an economic summit or a political farce.

"Mr. Bush is absolutely right that a limited government is essential
to
a growing economy," Dasbach said. "So it's time that he stops
relentlessly expanding the government, while paying lip service to
economic freedom."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: LP RELEASE: Economic summit
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 11:22:25 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
>2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
>Washington DC 20037
>World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
>===============================
>For release: August 14, 2002

included:

>At the White House economic forum at Baylor University law school in
>Texas on Tuesday, Bush announced that he was sending a message to
>Congress that "a limited and focused government is essential to a
>growing economy." That message consisted of blocking a $5.1 billion
>amendment to a $28.9 billion anti-terrorism bill because much of the
>money had nothing to do with protecting homeland security, Bush
>said.

>But the idea that the president performed a heroic feat by rejecting
>the microscopic amount of money is ridiculous, Libertarians say.

Microscopic? That's 15% of what the total package would've been, or about
18% of the final total! Nothing to sneeze at.

>"If Bush is so concerned with frugal government, why did he sign the
>first $2 trillion federal budget in history?" Dasbach asked. "And
>why hasn't he vetoed a single appropriations bill since he took
>office?

Probably because, as in this case, things were negotiated in advance. It
doesn't look good for a Republican president to veto bills passed by a
mostly Republican Congress; that would say they don't have their act
together, that they should've worked things out in advance.

>"For example, the $200 billion farm bill that he so signed so
>enthusiastically was 40 times as large as the amount he rejected on
>Tuesday; the education bill that he and Sen. Teddy Kennedy
>championed was five times as large; and the current budget for
>corporate welfare is 17 times as large.

How do they know he didn't negotiate similar cuts in any of those?

>"Vetoing any of those would have been a much more genuine example of
>fiscal responsibility than rejecting a paltry $5 billion."

So why does LP choose to attack NOW, when he rejects that "paltry" amount?
They damn him when he does, damn him when he doesn't.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 03:32:29 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hey folks,

who won the cold war? christ, it was "won" by the abject failure of central
planning.

time is all it took, given that their are levis and rock music on our earth
to compare central planning to.

given the abject failure of central planning, given that there are levis and
rock music, thanks to liberty and capitalism, the days were numbered from
day one.

get to the fine, largely irrelevant points, regan didn't have squat to do
with it. get to the fine points gorbachev was a true leader. those of you
who don't know that were either too young, or you weren't paying attintion.

i wrote a personal letter to gorby, some years ago, thanking him. i figure
it never got past the cia and the nsa.

you dumb-shits who claim the defeat in afganistan for the soviets was
relevant are my true enemies!!! you are so are soooo fulll of shit. all
that gave "us" was the wtc, and the next installment of the fall of rome.

ronald regan defeated communism???? it makes me puke when republicans show
up in sheeps clothing, replublicns all, claiming to be libertarians.

ronald regan was bigtime peripheral. big time. levis were more important
than him, not to mention frank zappa - giving gorby thanks, not reagan,.

you blind right-wing republicans oughta quit it with fucking with
libertarians.

if ya love ronnie, ther's a home for you. it ain't this one, holding my
language, but not for long. i hate republicans!!!!, just 'cause i love
liberty.

communism failed because it was a failure from day one, time to show it.

IT DID NOT HAVE SQUAT TO TO WITH REPUBLICANS, NOT EVEN RONNIE!!!!!!

CHRIST, WHAT GROUP AM I IN!!!!!!!?????????? levis won the cold
war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 19:00:03 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com
CC: friends@foxnews.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to everyone...

> get to the fine, largely irrelevant points, regan didn't have squat to do
> with it. get to the fine points gorbachev was a true leader. those of
you
> who don't know that were either too young, or you weren't paying
attintion.

Thank you Larry! I was wondering myself if most around here were
going through a time/mind warp of staggering proportions. Russia and
the Soviet block changed because mainly people changed, and wanted
change. Thank God several strong and visionary leaders emerged to
help guide that process safely through, and one of them was NOT Ronald
Reagan. The three giants, each producing their own input to the
success of liberty were Gorbechev, Yeltsen and Vladimir Putin, in that
order.

While Reagan was tinkering around with 'Star Wars', Gorbechev was
opening his sphere of political influence up to internal scrutiny, and
promoting western dialogue to bring about understanding. He was a
giant of a leader, boldly bringing in a sense of transparency and
fundamental restructuring of the Soviet shipwreck of central planning
and totalitarian dictatorship.

The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won the
cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual
liberty while the west, under such leadership as the Shrub Regime<tm)
seems to be regressing into police state totalitarianism. With
illegal kidnapping and incarcerations of foreign nationals, prisoners
without any charges, and without any rights to redress, unlawful
detentions by the hundreds on US soil, snitches paid to inform on
their own neighbours, warrantless arrests and searches, military
tribunals, secret wiretaps and electronic surveillance of private
internet and communication traffic (again without specific court
authority), racial and ethnic profiling, homes and offices being
entered without warrants or owner's presence, and I believe we have a
strong case that the west lost the cold war!

> i wrote a personal letter to gorby, some years ago, thanking him. i
figure
> it never got past the cia and the nsa.

If it were written recently, particularly in the aftermath of 9/11,
probably so.

Thanks again Larry for your insightful comments.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 15 Aug 2002 13:23:07 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 05:00, Frank Reichert wrote:

> The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
> would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won the
> cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
> increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual

Next thing we'll see is you claiming the south won the Civil War, since
they benefited from the following economic progress and sociological
advances. Or that Japan won WWII because of the economic boom they made
after the end of it. Talk about revisionism!

To say the Soviet Union won the cold war is to ignore what the cold war
_was_. The cold war was the USSR wanting to expand it's empire, and the
US wanting to prevent that. It was not about central planning,
communism, capitalism, or republicanism or democracy. The Soviets
wanted to rule the world. The US wanted to prevent that. Have you
forgotten the policies of "containment" and "limited containment"?

Have you forgotten how the Europeans were unhappy with the US'
involvement in Afghanistan because they felt it was jeopardizing our
ability to defend them?

Does the Soviet Empire cover any appreciable amount of geography today?
Nope. It crumbled. To say that contributing factors to the the fall of
the USSR was what the war was about, or to say that the resulting
changes were what the war was about is to ignore history, and be
revisionist.

There is a major difference between who *benefited* form changes or from
the ending of a war, or even from the result of the war, and who won the
war.

If you really want to get down to it, the USSR wound up following the
policy of "If you can't beat them, join them", aka BandWagoning.

Contrary to some here, not one man was responsible for the fall of the
Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was the culmination of a
long series of events.

These Gorbasms are truly amazing. I've seen it claimed that he was
responsible for the growth of the Internet! HAH!

OH BTW, Frank, Time's "Awards" are of dubious distinction. Stalin was
Man of the Year in 1939 and 1942, Hitler in 1938, Nikita Krushchev in
1957,Ayatullah Khomeini in 1979, and Bin Laden was one of the candidates
for last year. Hell, they *gave* it to Reagan in 1980 for getting
elected!

Remember the qualifications for the "award":
"The person or persons who most affected the news of our lives, for good
or ill, this year."

To say that any one person, Reagan or Gorbachev, was responsible for the
conclusion of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR is to succumb to the
Cult of Personality, and ignore reality.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:17:17 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Bill,

interspersed below:

on 8/15/02 12:23 PM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 05:00, Frank Reichert wrote:
>
>> The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
>> would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won the
>> cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
>> increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual
>
> Next thing we'll see is you claiming the south won the Civil War, since
> they benefited from the following economic progress and sociological
> advances. Or that Japan won WWII because of the economic boom they made
> after the end of it. Talk about revisionism!

i believe frank was speaking retorically; wanting to point out the clear
totalitarian risk in the implications of currents u.s. government policy.
it does the u.s. little good to 'defeat' communism if it adopts policies
which could lead to stalinism. that was frank's point, bill, sorry you
missed it.
>
> To say the Soviet Union won the cold war is to ignore what the cold war
> _was_. The cold war was the USSR wanting to expand it's empire, and the
> US wanting to prevent that.

why did the u.s. wanna prevent that, bill?? to save liberty? nope.
it was government empire against government empire. next i figure you'll
tell us vietnam was a war for liberty, as is the u.s. involvement in
columbia, the next vietnam. u.s. foriegn policy has been the politics of
empire, not liberty. ***not liberty***!! - unless you wanna claim the shah
of iran was promoting liberty with the savak secret police.

> It was not about central planning,

then why the hell did the u.s. oppose the soviets? but you're right, that
was just the cover. it was about power and who gets it, not about liberty.

> communism, capitalism, or republicanism or democracy. The Soviets
> wanted to rule the world. The US wanted to prevent that. Have you
> forgotten the policies of "containment" and "limited containment"?

i remember them well, empire against empire, liberty missing from the
equation.

>
> Contrary to some here, not one man was responsible for the fall of the
> Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was the culmination of a
> long series of events.

gorby was a true hero, as i see it, but you're right, it was not a "man"
it was levis, rock music, and a yearning for liberty, AND THE ABJECT
FAILURE OF CENTRAL PLANNING - THAT **ALWAYS** A FAILURE, GIVEN TIME.
>
> These Gorbasms are truly amazing. I've seen it claimed that he was
> responsible for the growth of the Internet! HAH!

GORBASMS?? pretty quick, bill, and funny. still, gorbachev had the power
to be a stalin. he chose not too, and much better than that. much better!!

>
> To say that any one person, Reagan or Gorbachev, was responsible for the
> conclusion of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR is to succumb to the
> Cult of Personality, and ignore reality.
>

well, bill, as i read you, the reality you are ignoring, surprisingly for a
libertarian, is that it was the abscense of liberty which did in the soviets
and it did not have squat to do with the imperialism of the u.s.,
or the massive tax-funded military spending of reagan.

larry


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 02:23:26 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
> > would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won the
> > cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
> > increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual

You replied:
> Next thing we'll see is you claiming the south won the Civil War, since
> they benefited from the following economic progress and sociological
> advances. Or that Japan won WWII because of the economic boom they made
> after the end of it. Talk about revisionism!

I will no go into much labour to discuss semantical elements of your
argument here. The South obviously did NOT benefit very much
economically following the northern occupation, particularly under
President Grant. But there are voices, voiced by historians of merit,
that do question who won WWII, particularly in the case of Japan! You
might find that rather interesting, as it certainly has been until
rather recently rather accurate. After WWII, Japan did gain, more
than anyone else in this region, economically in terms of control.
That is very clear from economic history, particularly in the late
1970s through 1990s. It is not so relevant today. Japan however,
even today, is the world's second largest economy. That may not
stand, but that is for other reasons.

> To say the Soviet Union won the cold war is to ignore what the cold war
> _was_. The cold war was the USSR wanting to expand it's empire, and the
> US wanting to prevent that.

I don't question that at all. It certainly was an ideological
struggle to be sure. Gorbechev, Yeltsen, and particularly Putin
wanted to make a tremendous shift toward democratic reform, and it
gets better as you go from the first to the last individual in current
power. I am NOT suggesting that Gorbechev had in mind Vladimir Putin,
but nevertheless, things work that way naturally over time that way
sometimes, and in this case it certainly did. Which is why I took the
time to point out that with Gorbechev's reforms, liberty was certainly
the main focus in contrast to dictatorial regimentation in the
previous decades of Soviet history. Yeltsen was also a product of his
own time, as is Putin. But these were and are giants of men with a lot
of guts and vision, and it had little to do with Ronald Reagan --
that's all I really said! It would have happened anyway! It had to.
With or without Reagan.

> It was not about central planning,
> communism, capitalism, or republicanism or democracy. The Soviets
> wanted to rule the world. The US wanted to prevent that. Have you
> forgotten the policies of "containment" and "limited containment"?

No I haven't. But if you are talking primarily in terms of "liberty",
then you'll have to admit that most of eastern Europe and the former
Republics of the former Soviet Union are by far more free today, and
Ronald Reagan planed no role in that occurring. The PEOPLE wanted
liberty, and the politicians in this case, e.g. Gorbechev, Yeltsen and
Putin knew that to be the case. In any case, it still took a lot of
guts to get in the face of the Communist Party and the Cps control of
the Soviet apparatus to bring about any reform at all! It could have
easily failed. It didn't. Gorbechev is still the "Man of the Decade"
according to TIME magazine, and NOT Ronald Reagan to the chagrin of
the radical right.

I know very well I am pissing off the radical right elements here. I
also know Gorbechev is still likely a communist, and still believes
communism can work in an open society with free choices. He is
probably correct, and since he has never renounced communism, I
believe his leadership was especially important, since the outcome of
his liberalization resulted in a pluralistic democracy in Russia, and
throughout the former Soviet block! Think about that. He took the
chance, and yet he has never renounced his own beliefs -- he was
willing to give the people the chance to choose! They have, and they
still do.

Can a communist be a real libertarian at heart? I don't know. But
contrary to many here, I believe that self-determination, that nations
have a right to freely choose their own government, is a core
libertarian assumption. Which is also why I believe that islamic
states have a right to freely determine their own form of government,
and the foreign policy and associated aspects that govern such a
society.

> Have you forgotten how the Europeans were unhappy with the US'
> involvement in Afghanistan because they felt it was jeopardizing our
> ability to defend them?

I DON'T THINK SO! Where's the evidence for this? God, I'd like to
hear more about this. Where did this come from?

> Does the Soviet Empire cover any appreciable amount of geography today?

There is NO Soviet Empire today. It's gone. There is far more
liberty and freedom in Russia and almost all former Soviet Republics
-- that's the point.

> Nope. It crumbled. To say that contributing factors to the the fall of
> the USSR was what the war was about, or to say that the resulting
> changes were what the war was about is to ignore history, and be
> revisionist.

What's so "revisionist" about being factual? Truth is: great leaders
emerged and took tremendous chances to bring about these changes, and
Ronald Reagan was, again, not one of them, nor was US foreign policy
really. The radical right would like to believe that all of the
changes in the last decade or so of the 20th century were the direct
result of US foreign policy. If anything at all, US foreign policy
probably restrained such reforms from taking place until they were
inevitable!

> There is a major difference between who *benefited* form changes or from
> the ending of a war, or even from the result of the war, and who won the
> war.

No, just as in the American Revolution, it took leadership on the part
of those concerned, to bring about what the people really wanted.
About the ONLY thing that the Shrub has done, was to at least
recognize the stellar leadership of Vladimir Putin. I have no idea if
that is genuine, but at least I hope it is. The Shrub has also
slammed Putin on many occasions by sending US military forces into
Russian areas of influence, ostensibly without consultations!

> If you really want to get down to it, the USSR wound up following the
> policy of "If you can't beat them, join them", aka BandWagoning.

That's just not the way it happened, and I hope you know it. It's a
lot more complicated than that. You had to defeat the CP's hold on
the Soviet political apparatus. It took real individuals to make that
happen, even relegate the CP to the sidelines! Do you REALLY believe
that Gorbechev's challenge to the Communist hardliners, or Yeltsen's
ability to stand up against a counter coup, was simply grandstanding?
That took guts beyond what any current US leader that I have observed
has been willing and able to do!

> Contrary to some here, not one man was responsible for the fall of the
> Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was the culmination of a
> long series of events.

It was finally the result of real people. Real people with courage and
character. I have no idea how you want to continue this dialogue, but
you have not made any case whatsoever that the US won the war. We
didn't win it. If we had won it, then liberty would prevail in the US
-- it isn't. Does the US government have to be the world statesman?
Does everything that takes place on this planet result from US
leadership? This is the same insane arrogance displayed by the Shrub
Regime<tm> today in relation to virtually everything. Bill, get off of
it! The US government is NOT the omniscient God that controls the
entire planet. Ronald Reagan was NO hero.

> These Gorbasms are truly amazing. I've seen it claimed that he was
> responsible for the growth of the Internet! HAH!

Well, I've heard equally outrageous claims that Ronald Reagan was
responsible for ending the cold war, restoring democracy, liberty, and
apple pie and motherhood! What the fuck -- over? If you add tax free
beer and cigarettes I might sign on! Don't you have a clue that
ultimately, the US government doesn't have a special mandate to save
the world against itself?

Real people do such things, and they aren't always Americans, or even
attached in any way to the US government, or arrogant US foreign
policy. Often people determine for themselves what they want, and
politicians see an opportunity to supporting such. Ronald Reagan is
hardly considered a patriot anywhere except by the far right wing in
US politics. Certainly NOT in the former Soviet block.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: FRANK, SAVE ME FROM FOOLS.....
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 04:02:07 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

HIYA, FRANK,

I READ ON THIS LIST THAT RONNIE DEFEATING THE COMMIES IN AFGANISTAN ENDED
THE SOVIET UNION.

PUKE!!!!!!!

SAVE ME FROM FOOLS SPEAKING OBSCENITY, PROFANITY, AND VULGARITY.

COMES TO IT, FRANK, WE CAN'T BE ON THE SAME LIST.

WHO YA GONNA KICK OUT FRANK??

RONNIE DEFEATED COMMUNISM?? ROTFALMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LF

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: FRANK, SAVE ME FROM FOOLS.....
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:55:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert....

> COMES TO IT, FRANK, WE CAN'T BE ON THE SAME LIST.

You must have missed the last post I wrote to you.

> WHO YA GONNA KICK OUT FRANK??

It's not my job to kick people out for their own opinions.

1. You are welcome to express your own opinions, as am I.

2. I usually support "most" of your opinions, as you do mine.

3. Let's keep an open mind and let things fall where they will.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: FRANK, SAVE ME FROM FOOLS.....
Date: 15 Aug 2002 12:16:23 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@noreboots.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 05:02, larry fullmer wrote:
> HIYA, FRANK,
>
> I READ ON THIS LIST THAT RONNIE DEFEATING THE COMMIES IN AFGANISTAN ENDED
> THE SOVIET UNION.

No, Larry, you are not. What was posted was that that event was ONE of
several factors the contributed heavily to the defeat of the soviet
Union.

--
Bill Anderson
RHCE #807302597505773
bill@noreboots.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: FRANK, SAVE ME FROM FOOLS.....
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 00:27:43 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank,

you were not the "we" i was referring to. in fact, i dunno who i was
referring to. i read some folks claiming ronnie reagan was a good guy.
i freaked, drunk as i was. those were the "we" i was referring too, but,
the fact is, it was just drunken bullshit.

very sorry. i'm damn well gonna deal with my problem. i promise you.

larry

on 8/15/02 5:55 AM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Greetings again Larry!
>
> larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert....
>
>> COMES TO IT, FRANK, WE CAN'T BE ON THE SAME LIST.
>
> You must have missed the last post I wrote to you.
>
>> WHO YA GONNA KICK OUT FRANK??
>
> It's not my job to kick people out for their own opinions.
>
> 1. You are welcome to express your own opinions, as am I.
>
> 2. I usually support "most" of your opinions, as you do mine.
>
> 3. Let's keep an open mind and let things fall where they will.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: please join us!
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 23:48:49 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com


I would like to invite the members of this list to consider joining
our Justice For Families, Inc. list as well. The list's home site is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/justiceforfamilies/
While the focus is coercive intervention into families by
Child "Protective" Services based on false or frivolous allegations,
we have a very active discussion forum that includes many related
collateral issues: fathers rights, foster care reform, homeschooling,
OBE, law and Constitutional issues, preserving American freedoms and
values, liberty and patriot issues, government reform, judicial
reform, political activism, legislation, politics, stemming creeping
socialism, etc.. We have 230 members, including journalists,
sociologists, academics, attys, candidates, lobbyists, and an average
of 50 posts per day (so "individual email" setting NOT recommended!).
Anyone interested in saving our most fundamental and cherished
American values, and the sanctity and integrity of the family, please
join us. Thank-you, Nev Moore, Exec. Director, Justice For Families,
Inc. www.justiceforfamilies.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Who won the cold war?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:03:55 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote in part:

>gorbachev had the power to be a stalin.

What made you think that?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Who won the cold war?
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:08:08 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank asked:

>Do you REALLY
>believe that Gorbechev's challenge to the Communist hardliners
>...was simply grandstanding?

No, but I think characterizing "Gorbachev's challenge" as being against
Communist hard liners per se is wrong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 21:55:42 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Larry Fullmer...

Larry Fullmer wrote:
> lfullmer1@cableone.net wrote in part:
> >gorbachev had the power to be a stalin.

You replied:
> What made you think that?

History, for one thing. Soviet history. You can even go back much
further and talk about Czarist history. Gorbechev was the man in
charge. He spoke for the state. What Larry said was quite relevant,
he chose a very different line, and he certainly could have invoked
whatever power was available in the soviet state to crush Poland,
again.

Probably a better question, addressed to you. How do you account for
Gorbechev becoming the acceptable "darling" in the west? Man of the
Decade in TIME magazine, for example? The leader of an environmental
think tank, based in San Francisco? An acceptable spokesman for
Democratic Reform, amongst other things? Face it, Gorbechev was a
visionary, although from the socialist/communist bent. I am not
convinced that YOU can convince me that he was focused upon
totalitarian "soviet style" utilitarianism to create its polar
objectives, as the Soviet empire previously held as its core.

All I am saying here is that if it were possible for Gorby to go back
to Russia, and presumably win an election to put him back in the
forefront of political realities -- I DOUBT seriously, he would be
considered as an enemy of the west! He would likely endorse much of
what President Putin has put his own name on the line to support.
That's what's different. Gorbechev would like support the Communist
Party. I doubt if he would be belligerent toward the west, but most
likely would accept the fate of communist ideology contesting itself
among several ideological alternatives.

I am suggesting this not because it will ever happen. It won't likely
ever happen. I can't imagine such as ever having a chance for success
really. I believe Russia is on a far different course, and perhaps
one that might very well determine the course of the 21st Century.
What I do see happening is something along the order of the US during
the industrial revolution that began around the time of the late 19th
century. That also led up to a time of central banking, and a lot of
other crap that Russia will likely have to go through. It doesn't
necessarily have to follow the same pattern that destroyed the United
States. It could, but the jury is certainly out at this point. Ya
just never know how history will develop.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: national defense
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 17:43:44 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Quoted in The Federalist:

>"No matter how much of our liberty Washington takes away in the
>name of security, there are no guarantees that there won't be
>another terrorist attack. Instead of attacking American liberties,
>the government ought to go after terrorists in their countries of
>origin. It should be like what our military attempted during WWII.
>Don't wait to defend ships against the kamikaze -- bomb the fields
>where they take off. We know the countries who sponsor, support
>and harbor terrorists. They are Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Libya,
>North Korea and a few others. The president should put these
>countries on credible notice that should United States suffer a
>terrorist attack and our intelligence discovers that, say, Saudi
>Arabia financed, assisted or harbored the terrorists, there would
>be a massive military retaliation that would not exclude nuclear
>weapons. ...I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone
>building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for
>him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his
>house before he gets a chance to fire it. But then again, I'm
>not a member of America's sissified generation." --Walter Williams

The only thing that bothers me is the assumption that covert ops won't be
attempted first. Sometimes they fail -- couldn't kill Castro -- but
sometimes they work -- deposed (or installed, I forgot which) Allende. Has
USAn ability in that regard declined?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 21:02:52 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Sorry, this got rather long.

I'm quite sure (although I have no evidence other than my assessment of who
is running things and what they are likely to do) that covert ops have been
contemplated and attempted (when a reasonable chance of success was
anticipated). However, the problem with covert ops is that they are
probably easier to foil with low technology--especially since we tend not
to send agents on "one-way" missions. And Iraq is probably the country
most organized to stop a covert op to assassinate the leader (probably even
better organized for that than the US itself)! My guess is that there are
some covert ops going on right now, but they are relative sideshows or
"preliminaries" to the main event. I expect that most of the "military
analysts" will be surprised at how little force will be needed to do the
job and how quickly the job will get done, and that some time later, we
will learn that a fair amount of covert/SF stuff took place to grease the
skids.

We supposedly helped depose (communist) Salvador Allende which resulted in
("right-wing") Augusto Pinochet running the country for just over a decade
and a half. The CIA role (to the extent there was one) was less a "covert
ops" kind of thing than aid to the opponents of Allende (who actually had a
majority in the parliament). The interesting thing is that some of the
same people who are mortally afraid of Bush using the power and popularity
he now enjoys to set up some sort of tyranny will refuse to acknowledge
that Allende was essentially doing the same thing in Chile (but Allende was
doing far more than Bush--nationalizing industry, expropriating
privately-owned property and redistributing it, and imposing price
controls). Not only that, but both right- and left-wing groups within the
country were arming, marching, and occasionally fighting. The military
coup (which ended with Allende shot dead in the presidential
palace--probably by attacking soldiers) had to quickly turn toward rounding
up armed left-wing Allende supporters in order to prevent a prolonged civil
war which many expected. That doesn't justify the killing that took
place. But on the other hand, the people most exercised about "Pinochet's
2,000-3,000 murders" aren't much concerned about how many people were
murdered by "Baby Doc Duvalier", Haile Salassie, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro, or
Daniel Ortega--not to mention the various dictators and thugs that ran the
Soviet Union, China, and eastern Europe.

What really torques people about Pinochet (although they won't say it) is
that he was successful. When he took over, there was a huge black market
and a damaged economy (which was part of the reason that there even *was* a
coup.) But Chile is now one of the more successful nations in Central and
South America having one of the fastest-growing economies and a per-capita
GDP second only to Argentina (without the abundant natural resources that
early in the last century made Argentina a potentially larger and wealthier
economy than the US!) According to the CIA world factbook
(http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html), the GDP per
capita (2000 est. of purchasing power) was: Argentina, $12,900; Chile,
$10,100; Mexico, $9,100, and (get this! Less than Chile!) Puerto Rico,
$10,000. The only other central and south American country I found (I
didn't check them all) with a GDP in that range was (surprisingly, to me)
Uruguay at $9,300. Every other country was below $7,000 (other than some
of the Caribbean islands --check out Aruba and Bermuda).

Not only that, but from what I've read, Chile is rather stable, and in some
ways more "libertarian" than the US is right now. As one example, they
have a privatized "social security" system that is far beyond what any
politician is talking about for the US--and in Chilean politics, their
privatized system is the "third rail" (touch it and die).

Robert Goodman wrote, in part:

>The only thing that bothers me is the assumption that covert ops won't be
>attempted first. Sometimes they fail -- couldn't kill Castro -- but
>sometimes they work -- deposed (or installed, I forgot which) Allende. Has
>USAn ability in that regard declined?
>
>In Your Sly Tribe,
>Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:16:24 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman quoting Walter Williams from The Federalist...

> >"No matter how much of our liberty Washington takes away in the
> >name of security, there are no guarantees that there won't be
> >another terrorist attack. Instead of attacking American liberties,
> >the government ought to go after terrorists in their countries of
> >origin. It should be like what our military attempted during WWII.

I have a great deal of respect for Walter Williams, and when Walter
writes, I listen and read. However, in this example, he assumes
several things that if applied in the context of the Shrub
Regime's<tm> contemplated war against Iraq, it just doesn't fit.

If we could PROVE that a terrorist organization has or is being
sponsored by a foreign state, then yes, by all means, declare war and
reduce that state to rubble, and reduce it's military facilities to
zilch. However, we haven't really been able to put an effective, air
tight case before the court of world opinion, that can prove
definitively, that Iraq has sponsored or is sponsoring any terrorist
organizations for the purpose of attacking the US. Even many
Congressional leaders, including Republicans, aren't convinced.

> >Don't wait to defend ships against the kamikaze -- bomb the fields
> >where they take off.

In this instance, Walter doesn't admit the crucial difference. We
were already at war with Japan, after the attack at Pearl Habour;
therefore whatever military actions we took against Japan, including
bombing airfields, were within the context of a declared war.

> We know the countries who sponsor, support
> >and harbor terrorists. They are Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Libya,
> >North Korea and a few others.

I don't doubt for a minute that various Saudi aristocrats, including
perhaps some in ruling capacities, did assist in funding al-Quieda.
But it is not very plausible that the Saudi government did so, since
by building up al-Quieda they would effectively be sponsoring their
own worst enemy, as Bin Laden's key purpose was to overthrow the House
of Saud and replace that government with a fundamentalist islamic
state. There is some evidence that might suggest that Libya was
sponsoring terrorism against the U.S. government, although that seems
to have largely ended after Reagan sent in the strike force to put the
fear of God in Kaddafi, coming very close to killing him.

> > The president should put these
> >countries on credible notice that should United States suffer a
> >terrorist attack and our intelligence discovers that, say, Saudi
> >Arabia financed, assisted or harbored the terrorists, there would
> >be a massive military retaliation that would not exclude nuclear
> >weapons.

I could probably go along with this, although unlocking nuclear
weapons would likely do far more harm that good. It would further
justify for instance that the US believes using nuclear weapons is
okay. It would be much harder to negotiate with nuclear states, such
as Pakistan or India, to NOT use them if we had such an open policy
for a first strike nuclear attack, and did in fact include such
strikes.

> > ...I detest the initiation of force, but if I see someone
> >building a cannon aimed at my house, I'm not going to wait for
> >him to fire it. I would eliminate him and anyone else in his
> >house before he gets a chance to fire it.

Well, the Soviet Union was doing just that for several decades, aiming
its missiles and nuclear arsenal at major US cities and military
installations. We did not initiate force to take out Soviet nuclear
capabilities. The same could be said of Communist China right now,
which is undergoing tremendous modernization in its nuclear arsenal
and long range strike capabilities. I believe Williams argument isn't
necessarily consistent nor credible. It is certainly no justification
for attacking Iraq, since Iraq is decades, if ever, away from a
missile launch capability, to launch a nuclear missile at the US,
unless it might be a US military ship in the Persian Gulf.

Robert Goodman summarized:
> The only thing that bothers me is the assumption that covert ops won't be
> attempted first. Sometimes they fail -- couldn't kill Castro -- but
> sometimes they work -- deposed (or installed, I forgot which) Allende.
Has
> USAn ability in that regard declined?

We deposed Allende, who was a freely elected marxist President of
Chile. And, as such it was morally wrong for the US CIA to engage in
such efforts, where the people freely chose a leader in a legitimate
election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still controversy
surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would be morally wrong
for any nation to use its covert intelligence to assassinate G.W. Bush
particularly in an election that was even more questionable than the
one in which Allende received a mandate to govern.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 19:49:49 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Erdman...

> We supposedly helped depose (communist) Salvador Allende which resulted in
> ("right-wing") Augusto Pinochet running the country for just over a decade
> and a half.

Ya, wasn't that really special?! I suspect there are some on this
list who likely approve of such atrocious acts of terror by the US
government. As I wrote Robert earlier, there is less contention over
Allede's mandate to rule as G.W. Bush has with his controversial votes
in the State of Florida! There was never any question that the people
elected Allende!

> The interesting thing is that some of the
> same people who are mortally afraid of Bush using the power and popularity
> he now enjoys to set up some sort of tyranny will refuse to acknowledge
> that Allende was essentially doing the same thing in Chile (but Allende
was
> doing far more than Bush--nationalizing industry, expropriating
> privately-owned property and redistributing it, and imposing price
> controls).

So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
and represent them.

> Not only that, but both right- and left-wing groups within the
> country were arming, marching, and occasionally fighting. The military
> coup (which ended with Allende shot dead in the presidential
> palace--probably by attacking soldiers) had to quickly turn toward
rounding
> up armed left-wing Allende supporters in order to prevent a prolonged
civil
> war which many expected. That doesn't justify the killing that took
> place. But on the other hand, the people most exercised about "Pinochet's
> 2,000-3,000 murders" aren't much concerned about how many people were
> murdered by "Baby Doc Duvalier", Haile Salassie, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro,
or
> Daniel Ortega--not to mention the various dictators and thugs that ran the
> Soviet Union, China, and eastern Europe.

Now look who's strawman building. You conveniently list only marxist
despots who murder. What about the predecessor of Daniel Ortega in
Nicaragua (Antonio Somosa (sp), who ran groups of notorious right wing
death squads to help solidify his base of power. He eventually was
overthrown and lived in exile in Paraguay (another right wing
dictatorship) with an hellacious human rights record. By contrast,
Oretega lost in what is considered a free election, and marxism was
finally defeated in Nicaragua peacefully!

> What really torques people about Pinochet (although they won't say it) is
> that he was successful. When he took over, there was a huge black market
> and a damaged economy (which was part of the reason that there even *was*
a
> coup.) But Chile is now one of the more successful nations in Central and
> South America having one of the fastest-growing economies and a per-capita
> GDP second only to Argentina (without the abundant natural resources that
> early in the last century made Argentina a potentially larger and
wealthier
> economy than the US!)

I really don't know what your point is in any of this. Even if true,
although I doubt Argentina's economic situation is the same as you
quoted today, and you left out Brazil for some reason also, it does
not justify US force in foreign politics usually, unless in a declared
war in which we have a clearly defined enemy to defeat. Pinochet did
perform well usually in economic liberalization, and was chiefly
instrumental in successfully privatizing social security. But for the
US to interfere in Chile's political process undermines the principle
of self-determination and free choice also. Using US intelligence
resources, or even overt military aggression is something that
libertarians should never accept as legitimate. Indeed, the
Libertarian Party does not.

> Not only that, but from what I've read, Chile is rather stable, and in
some
> ways more "libertarian" than the US is right now.

I don't doubt that it is, since I consider the US to be governed
largely with an executive branch and prostitute judicial system that
borders on abject fascism. There are a lot of countries that are far
more libertarian than the US government, particularly when you include
the dual aspect of libertarian idealism, e.g.: both economic and
social liberty. The Philippines is by far less economically or
socially intrusive than is the US government, and I could name several
others in the same category.

> As one example, they
> have a privatized "social security" system that is far beyond what any
> politician is talking about for the US--and in Chilean politics, their
> privatized system is the "third rail" (touch it and die).

I'll give Pinochet credit for that one, and several other economic
liberalization efforts that he brought about. That said, it still
does not justify any US intervention or destabilization efforts to
topple marxist Allende from power. Had the Chilean people themselves
deposed Allende, and totally through their own efforts and resources,
that could be considered morally acceptable. In fact, there is a
government in place considerably north of Chile, where I would welcome
such a change, driven by the people, if indeed it would bring about
social and economic liberalization.

But since Carnivore might be tuning in, I won't identify such
specifics any further.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:52:03 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>Greetings again Lowell!
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Erdman...

>> We supposedly helped depose (communist) Salvador Allende which
>>resulted in ("right-wing") Augusto Pinochet running the country
>>for just over a decade and a half.

>Ya, wasn't that really special?! I suspect there are some on this
>list who likely approve of such atrocious acts of terror by the US
>government. As I wrote Robert earlier, there is less contention
>over Allede's mandate to rule as G.W. Bush has with his
>controversial votes in the State of Florida! There was never any
>question that the people elected Allende!

Did I ever question that? Do you think I care HOW people get into power?
Did I ever say I was for fair elections here? Sure, I'll tell OTHERS that
I'm for free & fair elections, because I want to get their sympathy by
making them think they have mine, but here I'll come right out and say fuck
the people, bring on freedom!

Why should people be allowed to vote themselves a piece of what others own,
when those others have the guns or treachery to stop them? Why should the
robber get an even break?

I'd thought we'd already made clear that some of us value liberty over
democracy, and that some of us valued justice over rules or fairness.

>So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
>elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
>voting booth?

Simple: the result was greater liberty & justice for all.

>>on the other hand, the people most exercised about "Pinochet's 2,
>>000-3,000 murders" aren't much concerned about how many people
>>were murdered by "Baby Doc Duvalier", Haile Salassie, Idi Amin,
>>Fidel Castro, or Daniel Ortega--not to mention the various
>>dictators and thugs that ran the Soviet Union, China, and eastern
>>Europe.

>Now look who's strawman building. You conveniently list
>only marxist despots who murder.

Since when were Duvalier and Amin Marxists? (I"m not even sure about Haile
Selassie.) And even Ortega had avowedly communist opposition.

>But for the US to interfere in Chile's political process
>undermines the principle of self-determination and free choice also.

And Frank, we've already established that YOU're for those things. Don't
you know by now that WE aren't?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Interesting take on why Al Qaeda attacked us.
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 03:28:47 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Here's an interesting take on what 9-11 was all about. It's rather long so
I'm not going to quote it. The summary is that Al Qaeda is acting out a
kind of Fantasy. Fantasy, in this case, means basically "not connected
with reality." They did the attack as a kind of "theater" to make
themselves "feel as if they were striking out on the side of the God." In
other words, you can't read the attack as being war in the conventional
(Clauswitzian) sense of "politics by other means", but rather as a
demonstration or "theatrical performance" to themselves and their fellow
believers that they are on the side of virtue. I'm afraid that there are
too many ideas introduced in the piece for me to adequately summarize, so
you'll need to read it the piece to understand it. You can skip the
section titled "The Nature of Fantasy Ideology" (the longest) and perhaps
the "America as prop" section and still understand the argument. But if
you want to argue with the author's take, you probably should read it all.

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris.html

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 12:52:08 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part, quoting Larry & me:

>> >gorbachev had the power to be a stalin.

>> What made you think that?

>History, for one thing. Soviet history. You can even go back much
>further and talk about Czarist history. Gorbechev was the man in
>charge. He spoke for the state.

That's right, he spoke for the state. That means he figured out what the
state would go for, and said it. The state would not do anything he chose
to say.

>Probably a better question, addressed to you. How do you account
>for Gorbechev becoming the acceptable "darling" in the west? Man
>of the Decade in TIME magazine, for example? The leader of an
>environmental think tank, based in San Francisco? An acceptable
>spokesman for Democratic Reform, amongst other things?

Basically for the same reason ANY politician becomes a darling of the press:

1. a charming personality
2. saying what the press wants to hear.

Gorby and his wife (Remember how Rena got to be a celebrity too?) were
different in their temperament and background than had been the crude
Kruschev and the officious Brezhnev or Kosygin. (Chernenko wasn't alive
long enough to make an impact. Andropov might have had a chance; I scoffed
when Bob Falk told me he was a British agent, but later he convinced me.)
And the press by then was VERY interested in presenting a Soviet leader as a
good guy who'd end the cold war, as opposed to Reagan's wanting to keep it
going. And everybody liked that port wine stain on his forehead.

>Face it,
>Gorbechev was a visionary, although from the socialist/communist
>bent. I am not convinced that YOU can convince me that he was
>focused upon totalitarian "soviet style" utilitarianism to create
>its polar objectives, as the Soviet empire previously held as its
>core.

I'm not convinced of that either. By his time there were no true believers
left in the Politburo under 80 YO. (I even heard there was practically
nobody youthful, PERIOD, in the Politburo.) They had no "-ism" in the sense
of ideology. But they did have jobs, and privilege, and enjoyed being part
of the "nomenclature". All they wanted to do was keep themselves going,
climb the ladder and step on the toes of those below them. Gorby got to
where he was, looked and saw that there ws some human ballast that was
sinking the ship faster than it might go down otherwise, and wanted to pry
that ballast loose.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 17 Aug 2002 14:43:37 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 12:23, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings again Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> I previously wrote:
> > > The question, 'Who won the cold war' is however controversial. I
> > > would suggest Russia and the former soviet block republics won the
> > > cold war, since they seem to be the only ones benefiting with
> > > increasing liberalization of the economic, social and individual
>
> You replied:
> > Next thing we'll see is you claiming the south won the Civil War, since
> > they benefited from the following economic progress and sociological
> > advances. Or that Japan won WWII because of the economic boom they made
> > after the end of it. Talk about revisionism!
>
> I will no go into much labour to discuss semantical elements of your
> argument here. The South obviously did NOT benefit very much
> economically following the northern occupation, particularly under
> President Grant. But there are voices, voiced by historians of merit,
> that do question who won WWII, particularly in the case of Japan! You

Maybe they should read the documents of surrender. That should help
clear their minds.

> > To say the Soviet Union won the cold war is to ignore what the cold war
> > _was_. The cold war was the USSR wanting to expand it's empire, and the
> > US wanting to prevent that.
>
> I don't question that at all. It certainly was an ideological
> struggle to be sure. Gorbechev, Yeltsen, and particularly Putin
> wanted to make a tremendous shift toward democratic reform, and it
> gets better as you go from the first to the last individual in current
> power. I am NOT suggesting that Gorbechev had in mind Vladimir Putin,
> but nevertheless, things work that way naturally over time that way
> sometimes, and in this case it certainly did. Which is why I took the
> time to point out that with Gorbechev's reforms, liberty was certainly
> the main focus in contrast to dictatorial regimentation in the
> previous decades of Soviet history. Yeltsen was also a product of his
> own time, as is Putin. But these were and are giants of men with a lot
> of guts and vision, and it had little to do with Ronald Reagan --
> that's all I really said! It would have happened anyway! It had to.
> With or without Reagan.

It would have happened with or without Gorbachev, in his own words.
Sorry, Frank, but I take Gorbachev's words about his intentions and
desires far more seriously than yours. He has stated that it was about
preventing change, not liberty. Yeltsin, as noted elsewhere, was no
champion of liberty, but a lover of power. Polls conducted by.in Russia
show that the people there generally can not see he did anything good
(46%), and less than a quarter of those polled felt he brought any good
movement in democracy, political reform and freedom.

Yeltsin is no light of freedom or liberty. Putin? the verdict is still
out, but I will say he looks better than Yeltsin and Gorbachev, so far.
Recall, however, that he was elected on a move of nationalism, after his
"war on terrorists" that started in October of 1999, when he was PM.

>
> > It was not about central planning,
> > communism, capitalism, or republicanism or democracy. The Soviets
> > wanted to rule the world. The US wanted to prevent that. Have you
> > forgotten the policies of "containment" and "limited containment"?
>
> No I haven't. But if you are talking primarily in terms of "liberty",
> then you'll have to admit that most of eastern Europe and the former
> Republics of the former Soviet Union are by far more free today, and
> Ronald Reagan planed no role in that occurring. The PEOPLE wanted
> liberty, and the politicians in this case, e.g. Gorbechev, Yeltsen and
> Putin knew that to be the case. In any case, it still took a lot of
> guts to get in the face of the Communist Party and the Cps control of
> the Soviet apparatus to bring about any reform at all! It could have
> easily failed. It didn't. Gorbechev is still the "Man of the Decade"
> according to TIME magazine, and NOT Ronald Reagan to the chagrin of
> the radical right.

And Hitler is still a "winner" of the Time MOY, as is Kruschev and
Stalin. Bug freaking deal. Can you name other "Man of the Decade"
"winners"? Nope. None before or since, according to time. A Dubious
"honor", at best.

>
> I know very well I am pissing off the radical right elements here. I
> also know Gorbechev is still likely a communist, and still believes
> communism can work in an open society with free choices. He is
> probably correct, and since he has never renounced communism, I
> believe his leadership was especially important, since the outcome of
> his liberalization resulted in a pluralistic democracy in Russia, and
> throughout the former Soviet block! Think about that. He took the
> chance, and yet he has never renounced his own beliefs -- he was
> willing to give the people the chance to choose! They have, and they
> still do.

Frank, in his own words, he thought he was helping communism. he reuslt
were not his intention.

>
> Can a communist be a real libertarian at heart? I don't know. But
> contrary to many here, I believe that self-determination, that nations
> have a right to freely choose their own government, is a core
> libertarian assumption. Which is also why I believe that islamic
> states have a right to freely determine their own form of government,
> and the foreign policy and associated aspects that govern such a
> society.
>
> > Have you forgotten how the Europeans were unhappy with the US'
> > involvement in Afghanistan because they felt it was jeopardizing our
> > ability to defend them?
>
> I DON'T THINK SO! Where's the evidence for this? God, I'd like to
> hear more about this. Where did this come from?

Just to be clear, I am talking about the first trip to Afghanistan, not
the current one. Did you think I was referring to the latest trip?

>
> > Does the Soviet Empire cover any appreciable amount of geography today?
>
> There is NO Soviet Empire today. It's gone. There is far more
> liberty and freedom in Russia and almost all former Soviet Republics
> -- that's the point.

No, that is not the point you have been pushing. The result was not the
intention. Therefore, one can not give the credit to Gorbachev the way
you do.

> > Nope. It crumbled. To say that contributing factors to the the fall of
> > the USSR was what the war was about, or to say that the resulting
> > changes were what the war was about is to ignore history, and be
> > revisionist.
>
> What's so "revisionist" about being factual? Truth is: great leaders
> emerged and took tremendous chances to bring about these changes, and
> Ronald Reagan was, again, not one of them, nor was US foreign policy

O whatever, Frank. So, you are saying that had the US NOT faced off with
the USSR, in a policy of containment with regards to the spread of the
Soviet Empire, it would have changed nothing? Are you saying that if we
had just rolled over and gave up, Gorbachev would still have still made
it into power, and still have made the changes? How much history must
you ignore to come to that conclusion? Most of it, that's how much.

> really. The radical right would like to believe that all of the
> changes in the last decade or so of the 20th century were the direct
> result of US foreign policy. If anything at all, US foreign policy
> probably restrained such reforms from taking place until they wer

You know Frank, your blame America for everything is getting old and
tired. You cannot logically claim that American Foreign Policy causes
bad things, and does no good things. It shows your bias.

> > There is a major difference between who *benefited* form changes or from
> > the ending of a war, or even from the result of the war, and who won the
> > war.
>
> No, just as in the American Revolution, it took leadership on the part
> of those concerned, to bring about what the people really wanted.
> About the ONLY thing that the Shrub has done, was to at least

Who mentioned Bush? Not I; you. Again, your bias colors your words. Bush
had nothing to do with the breakup of the USSR, so your referencing him
is out of contest, and irrelevant. The people wanted food, water,
heating, and basic good they were not getting. Liberty was not, I know
this may suprise you, their chief concern.

> > If you really want to get down to it, the USSR wound up following the
> > policy of "If you can't beat them, join them", aka BandWagoning.
>
> That's just not the way it happened, and I hope you know it. It's a
> lot more complicated than that. You had to defeat the CP's hold on

BS. The weight of USSR's Empire rested on three pillars. The KGB, the
CP, and the military. In Afghanistan, her military was reduced in might
and power, as was the KGB and the CP. The war in Afghanistan was costing
the USSR approximately 10Billion a year, and in the end about 60,000
troops. Ramifications of the loss of that war rippled through the USSR
like an earthquake. The KGB was also damaged heavily by the failure in
Afghan.

In fact, the very fact that Gorbachev achieved the station he did,
against the desires of the KGB and the "hard liners" demonstrates
clearly that the KGB had lost much of it's power.

> the Soviet political apparatus. It took real individuals to make that
> happen, even relegate the CP to the sidelines! Do you REALLY believe
> that Gorbechev's challenge to the Communist hardliners, or Yeltsen's
> ability to stand up against a counter coup, was simply grandstanding?

Yeltsin's "standing up" to the coup WAS grandstanding, yes. Look at his
actions after he obtained power to see the truth behind it, Frank. In
Gorbachev's words, he felt the "Hardliners" were trying to dissolve the
USSR. IN HIS WORDS. You are Frank, not Gorbachev. I'll take his words on
his desires and intentions above your *any* day. Just as I'd take your
words about your desires and intentions over his, *any* day. Tell me why
I should believe your statements about what he did over his own.

> > Contrary to some here, not one man was responsible for the fall of the
> > Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. It was the culmination of a
> > long series of events.
>
> It was finally the result of real people. Real people with courage and
> character. I have no idea how you want to continue this dialogue, but
> you have not made any case whatsoever that the US won the war. We
> didn't win it. If we had won it, then liberty would prevail in the US

Bullshit, Frank. As *you* have said often, the was was NOT about
liberty. It was a battle of ideologies, not liberty. so take your
argument and shine some light on it. You determine the winner of a
contest by looking at the goals of each contestant, or the contest. As
you have repeatedly said, and I agree with, Liberty was not a factor in
the contest. Therefore, it is not a factor in determining who won it.
The only case you have made for USSR winning it, is that they
*benefited* from the end of it, and from *adopting the policies of the
opposing contestant*.

> -- it isn't. Does the US government have to be the world statesman?
> Does everything that takes place on this planet result from US
> leadership? This is the same insane arrogance displayed by the Shrub
> Regime<tm> today in relation to virtually everything. Bill, get off of
> it! The US government is NOT the omniscient God that controls the
> entire planet. Ronald Reagan was NO hero.

Open your eyes and do some reading. Either show me where I claimed
Reagan was a hero, etc. (or even close) or shut up and apologize. Fact
is, I have been making the statement that the "named players" were not
leaders in it, and that NO ONE MAN IS DUE THE CREDIT. Christ man, open
your eyes, take off your "Frank is always right" glasses and read for a
change. I see a lot of arrogance in *your* words up there Frank. Lots of
things that have never been claimed in this forum *by*anyone*. Yup, lots
of straw up there.

>
> > These Gorbasms are truly amazing. I've seen it claimed that he was
> > responsible for the growth of the Internet! HAH!
>
> Well, I've heard equally outrageous claims that Ronald Reagan was
> responsible for ending the cold war, restoring democracy, liberty, and
> apple pie and motherhood! What the fuck -- over? If you add tax free
> beer and cigarettes I might sign on! Don't you have a clue that
> ultimately, the US government doesn't have a special mandate to save
> the world against itself?

Yay, another pathetic strawman from you. Can you not stick to the
subject? It seems all you care about these days are the prices of your
beer and cigarettes. How much are they in Russia? Maybe that is where
you should be trying to go to. Oh, wait they have rampant unemployment,
and approximately one in four citizens are below the *Russian* poverty
level. Yeah, they are doing soooo well over there.

> Real people do such things, and they aren't always Americans, or even
> attached in any way to the US government, or arrogant US foreign
> policy. Often people determine for themselves what they want, and
> politicians see an opportunity to supporting such. Ronald Reagan is
> hardly considered a patriot anywhere except by the far right wing in
> US politics. Certainly NOT in the former Soviet block.

And I am supposed to care why? I don't give a damn about your personal
vendetta against Reagan. It is only important in showing your bias
against facts. I don't give a damn about personalities, I care about the
long term tendencies and progressions that are above and beyond mere
personalities (you know, the important things when looking at history
and application of it to the future and present). A personality can
*only* become accepted *if* there is a basis for supporting it. Period.

Fact is much of the events that contributed to the demise of the USSR
occurred during his watch, now before you get your panties in a bunch
again, notice I said during his watch. Further, to deny that the
military buildup had a devastating effect on a the strength of the USSR
is just plain biased and ignorant, Frank. Facts are that over eighty
percent of the Soviet economy was dedicated to her military. In the late
1970's that military was dealt a heavy blow by it's failure in Afghan.
Follow that with an increase in opposing forces and you have a recipe
for economic crash, which is exactly what happened. Facts are that they
could not keep up with us, so they lost one of their foundational
pillars.

You know, this revisionism you are preaching can be compared to a
footrace. Joe and Bob are in the Olympics, in the 100 meter dash. Joe
wins the gold, and Bob the Silver. Joe won. But Bob has better charisma,
and winds up on the cover of Wheaties. What you are doing is saying that
Bob won the race. When the fact is, he came in second.

Now, if you want to argue that Bob *benefited* more from the race, fine.
but to say Bob *won* the race is ignorant, and revisionist. By your
argument, that the cold war was won by the soviets because they
*benefited* more, then the cold war was fated to be won by them, because
they would have *always* benefited from moving toward economic freedoms.

Again, as you have acknowledged, the Cold War was one of Communism vs
non-Communism. It was not about free-markets or Levis. The Soviets
wanted to control the world. The Soviet Empire has fallen., hence, it
LOST. it FAILED to achieve it's goals. The US point in the Cold War was
to PREVENT the Soviet Empire from conquering the world. It SUCCEEDED. It
is pretty damned hypocritical for you to shout that the Cold War was not
about liberty, and then use liberty as a determinant in who won it.

If you can not see that there is a difference between benefiting from
the ending of a war, and winning the war, then there is no point in
attempting to discuss this with you further.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 21:13:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
> Yeltsin, as noted elsewhere, was no
> champion of liberty, but a lover of power. Polls conducted by.in Russia
> show that the people there generally can not see he did anything good
> (46%), and less than a quarter of those polled felt he brought any good
> movement in democracy, political reform and freedom.

That's probably true, since about 80 percent or above in America
today, subscribe that the Shrub Regime<tm> is doing a fabulous job in
the 'war on terror'. What the hell does that mean? With Gorbechev, it
had to start somewhere. It started with Gorbechev, and any political
science student would know this -- this is not something that can be
decided in a public opinion poll.

> Yeltsin is no light of freedom or liberty.

Yea he was, and in his own time, as history hopefully will finally
verify. Did he have it all together? Not likely. Was he a catalyst
for liberty -- obviously!

> Putin? the verdict is still
> out, but I will say he looks better than Yeltsin and Gorbachev, so far.
> Recall, however, that he was elected on a move of nationalism, after his
> "war on terrorists" that started in October of 1999, when he was PM.

I can't say definitively for sure, but I would suggest that history
will finally reveal that Putin was one of the world's greatest
statesmen for free choice and liberty. Once gain however, I don't
have the luxury of writing history books, and I don't' honestly know.
I do know bull shit when I see it. Lowell Savage's explanations of
east Asian history certainly tops my list of absolute bull shit, as I
wrote earlier. I really does. He has no clue whatsoever about what
motivates people in east Asia. All I am saying is that I can freely
talk about what I DO know, but can expand on that necessarily to reach
ultimate conclusions about global realities. I do know for a fact,
that we are losing badly in the discourse of world opinion.

> And Hitler is still a "winner" of the Time MOY, as is Kruschev and
> Stalin. Bug freaking deal. Can you name other "Man of the Decade"
> "winners"? Nope. None before or since, according to time. A Dubious
> "honor", at best.

We're talking about history. And yes, Kruscheve was a man and stature
of his own age. Look at the "age" we are talking about for crying out
loud! Now, before you shoot from the hip here, consider what life was
like in the 1960s! I mean that! Who had the guts to stand up before
massive US aggression? Who did?

> Frank, in his own words, he thought he was helping communism. he reuslt
> were not his intention.

I know that. So what, at least he believed that it could become a
choice, alongside other ideologies, right? People make their own
choices ultimately. I respect Gorbechev a lot, mainly because he still
believes that "communism" is a choice, not a result of the use of
force! Think about that! He was the only Soviet leader that even
gave the people such a choice, and he willing to live under the
consequences. That's huge! Self-determination is always the best
choice from a libertarian point of view. As well as individuals,
nations themselves have choices. Yes. I'll fight this battle to the
bitter end, you do not have the moral right to impose "liberty" by
force. We lose every moral high ground when and if, we attempt to do
such a thing. Liberty stands or falls on the basis of its own
merits. If we reject that, then we are no longer talking about
liberty anymore, we are talking totalitarianism and force.

Liberty and Russia, you wrote:
> No, that is not the point you have been pushing. The result was not the
> intention. Therefore, one can not give the credit to Gorbachev the way
> you do.

Gorbechev was a key player, the central one, at the time. His example
was and still is, that communism has a rightful place on a free
playing field. He was willing to risk that, e.g., that communism
could win on a free playing field throughout the Soviet block.

> O whatever, Frank. So, you are saying that had the US NOT faced off with
> the USSR, in a policy of containment with regards to the spread of the
> Soviet Empire, it would have changed nothing? Are you saying that if we
> had just rolled over and gave up, Gorbachev would still have still made
> it into power, and still have made the changes? How much history must
> you ignore to come to that conclusion? Most of it, that's how much.

No Bill. You have this entirely backward and wrong. Without
Gorbechev's openness and restructuring, nothing else would have
happened, likely for years, or decades. I don't honestly know why you
have a problem with this.

> You know Frank, your blame America for everything is getting old and
> tired. You cannot logically claim that American Foreign Policy causes
> bad things, and does no good things. It shows your bias.

Why is that? Because the US government has been the most arrogant and
imperialistic power or the face of the earth for the last five
decades? I won't even pretend to respond to such arrogance. We're
not talking about liberty here are we? Think about this for a while.
The greatest potential liberty likely exists today in eastern Europe,
or the former Soviet Union. Why is that anyway?

> Who mentioned Bush? Not I; you. Again, your bias colors your words.

Well, I guess I do have certain bias. Mainly I hate fascism about as
much as I do socialist communism.

> Bush
> had nothing to do with the breakup of the USSR, so your referencing him
> is out of contest, and irrelevant. The people wanted food, water,
> heating, and basic good they were not getting. Liberty was not, I know
> this may suprise you, their chief concern.

This borders on the ridiculous. I've already stated pretty clearly
that the US had little to do with the break-up of the Soviet block,
didn't I? Bush wasn't even politically around at the time.

> Yeltsin's "standing up" to the coup WAS grandstanding, yes.

I'm going to have to drop all of this from further discussion, at
least for my part. This was a giant moment in history and YOU know
it. It changed virtually everything. If YOU can't see that, I am
indeed very, very sorry. And, if that is the case, then George
Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or Samuel Adams had no significant roles
to play on the world stage either. You don't have a single clue about
what personalities played any role on the world stage, either in 1776,
or during the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. I'm personally tired
of bantering this about as if words had no meaning, or fundamental
actions had no consequence.

So, I'll let this all drift by, and will likely not comment further.
Before closing off however, if these individuals DID NOT PLAY A GIANT
ROLE on furthering liberty in the former Soviet Union, or upon the
world at large, then I guess I am at a complete loss in discovering
the significance of our own heroes, as mentioned just previously.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: JESUS H.??? - Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:06:39 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Frank,
>I do know bull shit when I see it. Lowell Savage's explanations of
>east Asian history certainly tops my list of absolute bull shit, as I
>wrote earlier. I really does. He has no clue whatsoever about what
>motivates people in east Asia.

Yes, I suppose I'm being naive in presuming that the people in east Asia
are motivated by the same things that motivate people worldwide. Most
people want the best possible life for themselves and their families. Some
people concentrate on material things, others on religious things. Almost
no one turns down good things that come their way and most are willing to
work hard for what they want. But I guess, in this case, I'll have to
defer to you, Frank, and accept that the people in east Asia are motivated
by something else. (Of course, I don't remember ever saying anything about
what "motivates people in east Asia", but I must have because Frank doesn't
lie.)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: 17 Aug 2002 14:49:32 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 11:03, Robert Goodman wrote:
> bill@libc.org wrote in small part:
>
> >If Libertarians were elected to all federal elective offices
> >available for two straight elections, it would still take a decade
> >or more to make the changes we need done.
>
> Could you please elaborate?

Sure.

First, as any Libertarian will attest to, Libertarians disagree on
enough things regarding how to solve the problems, that we'd argue for
at least the first 6 years or so. ;^)

Second, the system we have effectively slows down sweeping changes of
the kind the Libertarians would like to make. Some would say by design.

Third, the big one, IMO, is entitlements. It will take years to
dismantle the welfare system without destroying the society/economy in
the process. A reorganization of the military structure, and, as you
mention, the field of law, is likewise not a quick end. There are enough
laws that congress could spend years doing nothing but repealing law
after law, and still only dent it.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:23:35 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

bill@libc.org wrote in part:

>> >If Libertarians were elected to all federal elective offices
>> >available for two straight elections, it would still take a
>>decade >or more to make the changes we need done.

>> Could you please elaborate?

>First, as any Libertarian will attest to, Libertarians disagree on
>enough things regarding how to solve the problems, that we'd argue
>for at least the first 6 years or so. ;^)

>Second, the system we have effectively slows down sweeping changes
>of the kind the Libertarians would like to make. Some would say by
>design.

>Third, the big one, IMO, is entitlements. It will take years to
>dismantle the welfare system without destroying the society/economy
>in the process.

I don't see that. Maybe I need more detailed or concrete examples.

>A reorganization of the military structure, and, as
>you mention, the field of law, is likewise not a quick end. There
>are enough laws that congress could spend years doing nothing but
>repealing law after law, and still only dent it.
>--
The rate of repealing laws is not a problem if a meat-axe approach be taken.
Even if a fine-toothed comb is employed, there's enough manpower in all the
think tanks to have worked it out in advance.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:03:23 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> I guess, in this case, I'll have to
> defer to you, Frank, and accept that the people in east Asia are motivated
> by something else.

Okay good. Now a quick and remedial review of east Asia might be in
order.

East Asians are less of a homogenous group of people than are the
people of European origin frankly. Language, religion and cultures
are much different and more pronounced than in the west. In every
case what motivates them is quite different, and they cannot be
considered as is typical of many as a single block of people. There
are huge social, religious and cultural differences between say Japan
and Korea, between Japan, Korea, and China. Between Malaysians and
Vietnamese. Between Thais and Malaysians.

Nevertheless, there are some similarities that do seem to lie within
the background on how they view the world, and perceive things. They
are less confrontational than westerners usually are, and will even
lie to you in many cases when face-saving becomes important. It is
not considered a virtue when you insult someone, even though perhaps
the "insult" might be justifiable in western eyes. I am not directly
familiar however with southern Asia, having spent very little time
there, and never residing anywhere in that region, as I have in both
Japan (10 years) and the Philippines (about 10 years). I've also
spent time in Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, Hong Kong and Macau, Malaysia
and Singapore.

Now having said that, I find it troubling that east Asians are
beginning to sound more confrontational, and sometimes directly
"insulting" in dealing with the arrogance and beligerant nature of the
US government, particularly in foreign and economic policies. It is
occurring more frequently these days, particularly in the opinion
pages of regional and local newspapers.

In steep contrast to this, there is a far greater likelihood of
finding cultural common ground in things like religion, philosophy,
economics and social similarities in what we call western
civilization, which can largely be defined as western European, and
north, central and South American regions. Historically, for the most
part, the religion has been Christian, or various variants thereof,
and the long history of western empires, particularly Greek and Roman
were significant in bringing a sense of cultural, philosophical and
social affiliation.

There is one major difference in making this judgement however, and it
is very significant to any foreign policy considerations and efforts
by the US government and the western world. East Asian nations seem
to be far more pragmatic in dealing with this as an issue, and are
less judgmental in how nations, external to themselves, conduct their
own internal affairs. The issue I am talking about is the large and
growing block of islamic countries that stretch from Morocco through
Indonesia (with few exceptions such as India, Myrmar, Thailand, Indo
China, Singapore and the Philippines). Presently, Islam makes up
approximately 1/3 of the world's population, and in a few short years,
it will comprise even a much larger percentage. 30 million muslims
presently are in the United States.

Such a pragmatic and even-handed approach in foreign policy
demonstrates how ASEAN nations, some such as Malaysia and Indonesia
with huge muslim majorities, can coordinate such things as treaties,
economic pacts, mutual security and defence efforts, and immigration
etc. on a routine basis with non-muslim countries in the same
organization. Although Myrmar is largely targeted by US and western
human rights groups and governments, mainly from the US and Britain,
as being a brutal, if not tyrannical regime, no such condemnation
exists from the Philippines, Thailand, and other members of the ASEAN
block, nor does such condemnation exist from say Japan, Korea or
Taiwan. Internal policies and matters of individual governments are
largely matters considered for practical reasons for their own people
to deal with.

Due to centuries of coexistence and learning to work, trade, and deal
with each other, east Asians have a very different outlook on
conducting foreign policy than does the arrogant, imperialistic
gunboat diplomacy of the western world, in which the US government
seems to be the best holdover of a 20th century representative.
Imperial Japan was the largest exception to this, but that has its own
origin in history on the cultural maturity in which Japan developed
itself, and its relative isolated status for centuries as a remote,
but unified, island civilization. Unlike China, Japan developed one
language, a unified political system, banking system, and borrowed
very much but very selectively from those they chose had better
systems that might work well. They still conduct things in largely
such a way today.

It is not really feasible, or even realistic in any way for US foreign
policy to assume that such civilizations can be changed by brute
force, and made to accept democratic pluralism, libertarian idealism,
and western values! If you tout Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and
Taiwan as examples of this, don't fool yourself! It hasn't happened.
All such societies have borrowed what they like from the west,
modified it to fit their own cultural identities, and pragmatically
used such to further their own societies, economies and growth.

It is not a question about whether Japan is more libertarian than
Korea. Or if Hong Kong is more libertarian than Thailand. If you ask
a common Japanese man if he believes individuals have the right to
conduct their own personal affairs according to their own choices, and
be responsible for such choices, you would find yourself in a
difficult and awkward situation. Likely the answer you would get would
be evasive to your question. Japanese culture is steeped heavily in
non-individualism and mutual consensus building. You don't just go
home after working an 8-hour day on the job. You head for the
entertainment district with your colleges well into the night and
spend much of your time with them, usually riding home on the commuter
train before the station closes. It would be considered very
disrespectful to do otherwise! You have no luxury for deciding what
YOU chose to do, but you have every responsibility to be loyal to your
company and those you work with. You don't drive a Toyota if you work
for Nissan. Such would again be considered very disrespectful and an
insult to your employer.

In the private opinion of the Japanese man, he would even consider
your question to be arrogant and likely disrespectful. He won't tell
you that however. You learn that by having private friendships with
individuals, who eventually will open up and discuss such things. But
in the interest of face-saving, the answer you get will likely NOT be
yes, or know, but an evasive response about how Japan deals with ideas
such as making choices.

So, even though Japan has a written Constitution that in many ways
resembles the US Constitution, every Japanese knows full well that
that Constitution is NOT Japanese, it is foreign, and does not really
deal with or speak to Japan as a civilization. It is just more
practical to have such a Constitution, than to overtly change it right
now. Japan could have scraped that Constitution over the years, but
there are practical reasons for not doing so. That's a long story
however, and for time considerations, let's just assume that it meets
the immediate and pragmatic needs of Japan to keep that Constitution
in place.

I hope this helps in bringing some balance and understanding, that US
foreign policy, brutal military aggression, and arrogant gunboat
diplomacy isn't necessary seen as such a great virtue in the eyes a
billions of people.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who won the cold war?
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:53:29 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Well, this one is going to be a little bit shorter than usual...
unfortunately, not much. :-)

Greetings again Frank.
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > I guess, in this case, I'll have to
> > defer to you, Frank, and accept that the people in east Asia are
motivated
> > by something else.
>
>Okay good. Now a quick and remedial review of east Asia might be in
>order.

I've snipped the rest of it because it was, at best, a replay of old
western shibboleths about the East (with a few facts thrown in). At worst,
it was getting darn close to the old "well, those little brown people
simply aren't capable of making liberty work." I'm sure you didn't really
mean that, Frank, but it sure started to look that way in a few spots.

On the one hand, you said there are huge social, religious and cultural
differences among the different peoples of Asia. On the other hand, you
come up with a bunch of similarities among them which are "different" from
the west. Perhaps these are all true--but if so, it still makes my
point. In fact, you didn't point out anything that would change if US law
were magically transplanted to those countries. For instance, the fact
that a Japanese worker is more likely to socialize with his co-workers
after work to show his loyalty to "the team" is a cultural choice that he
would be free to make in a free society. There is no law in Japan that
says he must do this and there is no law in the US that says his
counterpart must not. In fact, given your discussion of the Japanese
constitution, perhaps the most interesting thing is that the major
constitutional debate in that country over the last 20 years or so has been
whether Japan should keep its defense spending within the constitutional 1%
limit (I forget whether it is 1% of GDP or 1% of total government receipts)
or whether it should exceed the limit and whether it should amend its
constitution to do so. (So far, it has exceeded the limit--although it has
used "creative bookkeeping" to stay "technically" within bounds.) Of *ALL*
the provisions in the Japanese constitution, this one must be the most
offensive to the true "Japanese patriot". And yet, there are a lot of
people who don't want to exceed that limit and want to keep that limit in
the constitution!

My point was that those countries which had the most economic freedom were
the ones which were best off economically--regardless of how they got that
freedom. I also noticed that they tended (with the possible exception of
the Philippines not getting that freedom) to get that greater amount of
freedom due to their contact with either Britain or the US. (And note that
one of my previous posts said something like "one of the things we may have
done wrong was in *not* intervening in the internal affairs more
actively." The Philippines is a case in point, we probably should have
pushed Marcos out a long time before the people there did. Had we done so,
the people there might be much better off today. Of course, it's also
*possible* that Marcos would have been replaced by someone worse--for the
Filipinos. So I'm only going to leave it a mild "probably".)

You also pointed out that many of these people do not appreciate the
freedoms that they have and do not understand that what economic progress
they have made is due to those freedoms. This means that they also do not
understand what is preventing them from achieving more economic
progress. So what? That doesn't mean they are correct. That means that
the evidence needs to be pointed out to them. After all, there are plenty
of people here in the US that don't understand that their wealth is not due
to the US Government actions, but due to the freedom and the rule of law
that we enjoy.

Tell me Frank. What is it that you really think? Do you really think that
the people in Burma are better off with a military junta running things
instead of their elected civilian officials? Do you really think that
Suharto was good for Indonesia? That Communism was good for Vietnam, Laos,
and Cambodia? That the people of Taiwan, Japan, S. Korea, and the
Philippines really don't want to go through the hassle of actually
*electing* their representatives, and that where there are problems with
the democratic or representative institutions, that they don't want them
fixed? That the rule of law, human rights, property rights, voting rights,
due process, freedom of speech, low taxes, and all the other similar things
that we libertarians fight for here in the US doesn't and wouldn't make a
significant difference in all of these countries? In other words, Frank,
do you really believe in freedom--even for people who aren't white,
middle-class, or at least, Americans?

One final thought. Freedom generally isn't "imposed" on the majority of a
population. Rather, freedom for the majority of the population is
"imposed" on the minority that was formerly "ruling" the country. Since
you mentioned the "tolerance" that the Asian nations have for Myanmar
(Burma), I'll take it as an example (remembering Barry Goldwater's
discussion of "moderation" and "extremism"). If the US came in and
"imposed liberty" on that nation (and I don't think it would be a good idea
to do so--unless there are some things I don't know), we would not be
"imposing" on the majority of the people. Rather, we would be "imposing"
on the military junta and their supporters. If it turned out that the
elected government was just as bad as the military junta and the people
turned against it (and against us), then at that point, we *would* be
trying to *impose* on the majority. But, of course, that's part of what
freedom is about--the freedom to change the government you no longer
believe is working in your best interest, and if that particular freedom is
"imposed" on the nation, then the people can change their government to get
one more to their liking.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: 17 Aug 2002 14:58:59 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 05:49, Frank Reichert wrote:

> So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
> elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
> voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
> government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
> and represent them.

This fixation on "freely elected" intrigues me. One the one hand, it
provides for mob-rule, tyranny of the majority. Anything decided by
election is right. On the other hand, it opens a slippery slope.

If the elections were not fair, or there were none, does that mean your
argument then switches sides? If it is wrong to "interfere" with
governments "freely elected", the corollary is that it must not be, if
the government was instituted by force, or rigged elections. If that is
accepted, then by that maxim, the government of any and all freely
elected governments, including the US, are not wrong to "interfere" with
non-freely elected governments, provided they provide a means of a truly
fair election. That slope is slippery, because who determines what is
fair? How does one certify that people were voting their desires, as
opposed to voting a certain way to either curry favor with a perceived
powerhouse, or avoid retribution from the prior non-freely elected
government?

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: 17 Aug 2002 15:02:47 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 05:16, Frank Reichert wrote:
> election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
> President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still controversy
> surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would be morally wrong

Gore's supporters counted the ballots their way, and he still lost. Keep
up, Frank.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:23:39 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>> election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
>> President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still
>>controversy surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would
>>be morally wrong

>Gore's supporters counted the ballots their way, and he still lost.
>Keep up, Frank.
>--
And I wouldn't care if it took a coup to keep Gore out of the White House.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:37:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Did I ever question that? Do you think I care HOW people get into power?
> Did I ever say I was for fair elections here? Sure, I'll tell OTHERS that
> I'm for free & fair elections, because I want to get their sympathy by
> making them think they have mine, but here I'll come right out and say
fuck
> the people, bring on freedom!

Problem with this is that you exclude the idea of self-determination
and free elections as if it had nothing to do with liberty. A case in
point is that you assume that people were more free under Pinochet
than they were under Allende. People had been given more economic
freedom under Pinochet, and under many conditions that might be
supportable. But that came at a terrible expense in terms of other
issues, e.g.: freedom of speech, press, and the freedom to make
political choices, such as electing government.

I have never tried to suggest that democracy, free choice or
legitimate elections guarantee liberty. I do suggest that true
liberty cannot really be achieved in the absence of such choices.
Again, there is no guarantee that the people will choose freedom if
given such choices, indeed in many cases they will not -- at least for
a while. But you cannot initiate force against someone to force them
to be free against their own will and still call that liberty. A
condition for liberty is that people themselves must choose liberty,
rather than some vague concept of bringing liberty to them under the
barrel of a gun, as obviously was the case of Pinochet's coup against
Allende.

> Why should people be allowed to vote themselves a piece of what others
own,
> when those others have the guns or treachery to stop them? Why should the
> robber get an even break?

I would only suggest that the people themselves do have the option of
taking up arms to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
I have always said that. But usually that seldom works very well, and
other alternatives seem to work much better, including civil
disobedience, aggressive protests, and using the power of the pen to
influence others to go along with you. I would say however that it is
never morally defensible for another state to impose such force for
the purpose of overthrowing any other government. Again, unless the
people themselves will support liberty on their own, such a concept
can never be considered legitimate, since you can't impose liberty by
external force. It would amount to something along the line of the
current Afghan puppet regime, propped up entirely by the US and
British governments. That government is just as alien to the people
who live in Afghanistan as would be the case under British colonial
rule of the US.

I only make the later point to suggest that the American people were
far more free under King George than we are under the current Shrub
Regime<tm> where about 50 percent of our productive income is forcibly
confiscated by the later, and its surrogate state governments acting
largely under federal mandates. Indeed, in today's political climate,
I would gladly choose, if given the opportunity, the government of
King George, as it existed in the 1770s, than the current government
ruled democratically by the people of the US.

> I'd thought we'd already made clear that some of us value liberty over
> democracy, and that some of us valued justice over rules or fairness.

I do not hold that pure democracy is a good idea either, which is why
the US government was put together in the fashion that it was. The US
Constitutionally as it was set up, was NOT a democracy. About the
only thing that could have been considered democratic at all was the
lower House of the US Congress. The Senate was then appointed by the
States, not under direct democratic vote by the people, and the
Electoral College was (and is) responsible in the process of electing
the President. The loss of the State's power to select who represents
them in the US Senate was a tremendous loss of Constitutional checks
against democratic mob rule.

I previously wrote:
> >So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
> >elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
> >voting booth?

You replied:
> Simple: the result was greater liberty & justice for all.

Certainly NOT if the people don't want it, and the third party
government imposes such "liberty" by brute force! The tremendous
costs associated with imposing such a condition upon an unwilling
people has also been a disaster.

> Since when were Duvalier and Amin Marxists? (I"m not even sure about
Haile
> Selassie.) And even Ortega had avowedly communist opposition.
>
> >But for the US to interfere in Chile's political process
> >undermines the principle of self-determination and free choice also.
>
> And Frank, we've already established that YOU're for those things. Don't
> you know by now that WE aren't?

I have no idea who this "we" is that you constantly refer to. I do
know that the Libertarian Party does not support initiating force to
overthrow existing governments outside of the confines of a legitimate
war for defensive purposes. Put mildly, if you wish to impose by brute
force, liberty for ONLY yourself, and against the wishes of a sizeable
majority who do not want you to be free, you will almost always lose.
At some point you will need to draw the "hearts and minds" support
from a majority who will support such liberty.

And, if enough people DO want to be free, then something along the
order of the Free State Project (FSP) or similar massive migration to
a small populated foreign state, would be more practical and effective
than pursuing a policy of armed aggression against third world
countries such as Iraq, Iran, Somalia, or imposing alien governments
upon people who will never accept it. As was the case in the early
history of America, particularly under colonial rule, many people who
did want such freedom migrated here and supported liberty, at least
for a while. In many cases too, such people also brought with them
there one fashion of despotism and tyranny, as in the cases of State
Supported churches and baring religious freedom.

All I am suggesting as there are much better practical alternatives
than simply pursuing a policy of aggression to achieve liberty. If
enough people were of like mind, then it would be more practical to
sell your possessions and move to a state or (foreign) territory where
the majority of people of like mind would ensure that liberty is
defensible against other alternatives.

Some counties lean pretty heavily in such a direction right now. How
committed are you really to liberty? Are you committed enough to
migrate elsewhere and support such an effort, to achieve that goal?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 09:52:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote:

> And I wouldn't care if it took a coup to keep Gore out of the White House.

And, taking into account the tremendous loss of liberty underway under
the Shrub Regime<tm>, just how much greater freedom do you believe we
have now, rather than if Gore had been elected? I would suggest for
one thing, that Congress would likely be more hostile to such
draconian policies than is currently the case under Bush. But the
Shrub Regime's<tm> support in Congress for a fascist infrastructure
may be waning right now anyway, as I've noticed that even some key
Republicans finally are now questioning the wisdom of unilaterally
attacking Iraq.

On the other hand, maybe we should just stand by and allow the Shrub
Regime<tm> to wage constant wars against third world dictatorships.
It would be a foreign policy disaster against the US of unimaginable
proportions. We would be standing alone on the world stage with every
conceivable nation of any credibility at all condemning us for such
wanton aggression. We would certainly see a tremendous upsurge in
attacks upon US interests and facilities world-wide, as well as most
likely on the US itself, and that's probably what it might take to
bring down to earth this rogue government. I'm not suggesting this
would likely result in more freedom to the US, however more nations
would then be free to make their own choices on how they are governed,
and opportunities for self-determination would certainly increase.
For the US, such would likely result in even more draconian siege
mentality, isolation and internal police state policies. But then,
the US also has a right to self-determination, and if the people
choose fascism over freedom, that's their choice.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:18:08 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
> > elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
> > voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
> > government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
> > and represent them.

You replied:
> This fixation on "freely elected" intrigues me. One the one hand, it
> provides for mob-rule, tyranny of the majority. Anything decided by
> election is right. On the other hand, it opens a slippery slope.

I'm one of the key opponents of pure democracy, and you should know
that. But you should also know that even the checks and balances the
US government had in place have been largely dismantled, such as the
US Senate being the body that represents state's interests, and the
States appointing the members of the Senate to represent such
interests. The shift was to make the entire US Congress a pure
democratic institution. The same mindset is also underway to abolish
the Electoral College, again making it possible for a pure democracy
to elect the Executive Branch.

So, unless the people are willing to vote and replace those checks
against wanton democratic rule, I see little over the horizon, outside
of a revolution, to bring back such guarantees. One of the best
examples of a free state that I can remember was Hong Kong under
British colonial rule. Almost pure economic freedom, and a high
degree of social freedom existed. Taxation was very low, and people
had the right to associate and form associations as they chose. About
the only limits I can think of is that there were laws on the books
limiting criticism of China, or inciting China, the reasons for which
are rather obvious, since the government's existence depending
entirely on China not overthrowing the place.

It can be argued from this, that the people weren't really free, since
the British Government refused to allow elections for local
government, which was very odd, since it is out of character with
usual British colonial practices that go back hundreds of years, where
colonies were allowed local legislatures. The reason the British did
not pursue the practice in Hong Kong was because the Chinese would
NEVER have tolerated a freely elected Hong Kong government if such a
government was opposed to the Chinese communist government.

On the other hand, there really were elections (of a sort) that
supported the British colonial government, the votes were cast by the
feet of the millions of immigrant refugees who were pouring into Hong
Kong by any method available to escape the communist socialist
paradise on the mainland. So it can also be argued that prior to the
end of British rule, there was some sense of self-determination, since
the influx of immigrants weren't leaving by choice either.

> If the elections were not fair, or there were none, does that mean your
> argument then switches sides?

No, it doesn't necessarily. See my points on Hong Kong. I'm more
interested in self-determination than I am with elections. I believe
in self-determination, rather than external aggression to achieve the
overthrow of any existing government. Sometimes self-determination
takes a very long time to achieve, particularly if liberty is
advanced. It happened eventually throughout eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union, most of that was largely non-violent,
fortunately. And that didn't happen (although others might dispute
this) through the use of external force. It also didn't result from
the voting booth either.

> If it is wrong to "interfere" with
> governments "freely elected", the corollary is that it must not be, if
> the government was instituted by force, or rigged elections. If that is
> accepted, then by that maxim, the government of any and all freely
> elected governments, including the US, are not wrong to "interfere" with
> non-freely elected governments, provided they provide a means of a truly
> fair election. That slope is slippery, because who determines what is
> fair? How does one certify that people were voting their desires, as
> opposed to voting a certain way to either curry favor with a perceived
> powerhouse, or avoid retribution from the prior non-freely elected
> government?

Again, self-determination is not always the result of traditional
elections. The mandate of the people can take various forms, usually
(at least in the historical sense) people simply gravitate toward, or
withdraw their support from the emperor, as the case may be. Any
government operating outside of the will of the people will eventually
be overthrown, either through peaceful means, or sometimes a violent
overthrow.

My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
super than its own ability to maintain itself in power. This has
nothing particularly to do with liberty at all. But the point is the
US government can't legitimately mandate and support governments
against the will of the people themselves, and the argument that such
a government will bring greater freedom is ridiculous, since in many
cases people choose tyranny (as in America) over freedom.

If you don't want to hear that then consider this: the people every
two years have an opportunity to overthrow the US government
peacefully. Every two years every member of the US House of
Representatives is elected. If the majority of Americans wanted to
end this horrendous taxation, wealth redistribution, the Social
Security and Medicare systems, such could easily be done quickly in
the voting booth every two years. You simply choose to elect
Libertarians and Constitutionalists to the US Congress and voted the
Republican and Democratic fascists out!

There are other ways the people could reject this government too. As
I said, it doesn't depend upon elections. People could easily choose
just to disobey all unjust laws. Just say no. Don't obey them.
Massive civil disobedience. Libertarian-minded individuals could
migrate to states that are more free with less taxation. I don't
really see that happening, although the Free State Project in theory
believes it might be possible. So, even with the absence of
elections, the American people largely have self-determined the
government and the absence of liberty that they are willing to
accept. That's a cold, but brutal fact. If Mexico were to attack the
US, and even giving assurances that they would bring a government that
is much more free than our existing one, I am quite sure that the
American people would take to the streets to fight the Mexican
invaders, even if as such, they would still find themselves
"languishing" in regulatory and taxation that is nothing less than
tyranny by supporting this government against Mexico's alternative.

Grant it, this is all hypothetical, but in a nutshell, this is why the
US government cannot impose liberty upon other nations and people
through the use of brute force. In Afghanistan, the Taliban regime
was really very small, and there were always plenty of arms and ammo
laying around. What did we see there. Millions of displaced refugees
living in Pakistan and Iran to escape a deplorable and repressive
regime in Afghanistan. What if those 2 or 3 million refugees had just
killed off the Taliban and thrown out the Arab militants such as
AlQaeda, and brought upon liberty and freedom throughout Afghanistan.

Of course one of the reasons is that the loyalties of the refugees
were likely all very different. Some fleeing from war lords while
being loyal with another one that might be losing in factional
struggles. Many perhaps were communists and were just fleeing because
they supported the former Soviet puppet regime. I guess we'll really
never know for sure what percentage versus other percentages supported
who or what. My point is that I doubt very much if "liberty" was ever
much of a consideration. Loyalty and alliances changes most likely
resulted in the displacement of people. Another point is that the
puppet regime in place by force from the US government is seen as only
a temporary, illegitimate, and an aggressor upon the will of the
people of Afghanistan, whatever that may be. The government of Hamil
Karzie really has virtually no influence outside of Kabul. It is the
US and British "peace keepers" who really maintain any sense of
internal security.

Now, in the face of all this, General Tommy Franks is suggesting that
US forces will be in Afghanistan for years! Oh shit, we weren't told
this now were we! He likened US presence in Afghanistan to the fifty
years US forces have been deployed in South Korea, suggesting this too
could take decades before things will become stabilized. This is an
interesting assessment indeed. As you know, the South Korean
government today isn't tickled pink by the Shrub Regime's<tm>
belligerent rhetoric against North Korea and interference in South
Korea's efforts to negotiate. AND THAT'S AFTER MORE THAN FIVE DECADES
OF US MILITARY PRESENCE! Even the Koreans want self-determination
amongst themselves rather than the US bully screwing up what they
believe might be best for themselves.

Okay, now we are being postured to believe that US military presence
in Afghanistan could be in place for decades, and thus requiring much
more in terms of military personnel, hardware, and security support.
How much is THAT going to cost? But the Shrub Regime<tm> isn't
content with even that. He wants to impose a new government in Iraq
too! That will be far more expensive that than of Afghanistan, and
since the US will be acting alone, presumably the new Iraqi government
will be completely dependent upon the US government for its survival
in this volatile region for decades to come. Then, when we're done
with pulverizing Iraq into the stone age and making "appropriate"
regime changes, we'll likely move on to Yemen, Somalia, perhaps Iran,
or maybe Syria if Israel becomes insecure and stability breaks down
which it certainly will after we attack Iraq.

Then, there is still this little matter of Saudi Arabia, who covertly
or indirectly pours millions of dollars into "terrorist" groups such
as AlQaeda. NOW, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT??? Since the
Saudi government is reluctant to rattle that can of worms, obviously
once Iraq has been neutralized, (and if the Saudi government still
even exists in its present form), we'll need to do something to cut
off the funding of terrorists coming from Saudi Arabia.

This gunboat diplomacy is certainly going to ingratiate the US
government with muslims everyone, including the 30 million or so who
reside in the US itself! I wonder where THEIR loyalties will lie in
all of this. It really doesn't take but only a small percentage of
outraged sympathizers to create a substantial underground "terrorist"
apparatus. It seems to me that this would become fertile recruitment
ground for islamic militants and terrorists -- and most of this would
be justified on the basis that we DESERVE to get pounded. People do
have a right to defend themselves. And, if the only way to do that is
to blow up US government buildings and economic infrastructure, then
so be it.

This is going to be the reality of which we will have to deal with
when the Shrub Regime<tm> attacks Iraq, particularly if this is a US
unilateral attack. The Shrub Regime<tm> will be totally isolated, and
no allied support will exist to continue to fight this insane 'war on
terror'. The greatest terror may finally become US isolation and
vulnerability to massive resistance throughout the islamic world.
And, the form of that resistance may not be excluded from at least
some of the muslim population residing in America itself.

Next question: can the US economy sustain this, perpetually? Can we
sustain the huge cost of defending puppet regimes in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, maybe Saudi Arabia itself eventually? Can we
sustain the economic costs associated with "terrorist" attacks upon US
targets abroad, and horrendous attacks against major economic and
political targets in major US cities across America?

All I am suggesting here is that we try to get some kind of grasp upon
where this aggressive and militant US foreign policy is really going,
and we'd better do that right now. The road the Shrub Regime<tm> is
travelling at the moment has the probability of destroying US foreign
relations irreparably for a long, long time. It has the propensity to
bankrupt totally the US economy, and derail global economic and
political relations.

The best we can hope for now is that the US Congress puts the breaks
on this reckless disregard for principled morality, and puts a stop to
this insanity before it ultimately destroys us.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:05:09 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>Problem with this is that you exclude the idea of self-determination
>and free elections as if it had nothing to do with liberty. A case
>in point is that you assume that people were more free under
>Pinochet than they were under Allende. People had been given more
>economic freedom under Pinochet, and under many conditions that
>might be supportable. But that came at a terrible expense in terms
>of other issues, e.g.: freedom of speech, press, and the freedom to
>make political choices, such as electing government.

The "freedom to make political choices" I count as nothing, sorry. Freedom
of speech and of the press are good things, definitely. I suppose if I had
to prioritize, I'd have to count freedom of action as superior to freedom of
speech. I mean, given the choice between being allowed to do something but
not talk about it, and being allowed to talk about something but not do it,
I'll take the first.

Meanwhile, we'll never know for sure, but I suspect that over the years, had
Allende stayed in, there'd've been less freedom of speech and press than
with Pinochet and his successors.

>I have never tried to suggest that democracy, free choice or
>legitimate elections guarantee liberty. I do suggest that true
>liberty cannot really be achieved in the absence of such choices.

My suspicion is that maximum liberty cannot be obtained until they're
abolished. In the absence of such a situation, democracy may be a good or a
bad thing, depending on conditions. I think on balance that right now the
world is better off with it.

>But you cannot initiate force against someone to
>force them to be free against their own will and still call that
>liberty. A condition for liberty is that people themselves must
>choose liberty

No. There are no such conditions. A person being left alone is at liberty,
however that comes about. There's no such thing as forcing someone to BE
free; however, you CAN force someone to leave someone else alone!

>Again, unless the people themselves will support
>liberty on their own, such a concept can never be considered
>legitimate, since you can't impose liberty by external force. It
>would amount to something along the line of the current Afghan
>puppet regime, propped up entirely by the US and British
>governments. That government is just as alien to the people who
>live in Afghanistan as would be the case under British colonial
>rule of the US.

Legitimate, shmegitimate. How about colonial rule of Hong Kong? Sure,
having it revert to China was popular, but what about the people who chose
to leave? You think they wouldn't've wanted to stay if they could be
assured of not being looted & gagged?

>I only make the later point to suggest that the American people were
>far more free under King George than we are under the current Shrub
>Regime<tm> where about 50 percent of our productive income is
>forcibly confiscated by the later, and its surrogate state
>governments acting largely under federal mandates. Indeed, in
>today's political climate, I would gladly choose, if given the
>opportunity, the government of King George, as it existed in the
>1770s, than the current government ruled democratically by the
>people of the US.

So how can you complain when I make the same judgement re other countries?

>> I'd thought we'd already made clear that some of us value liberty
>>over democracy, and that some of us valued justice over rules or
>>fairness.

>I do not hold that pure democracy is a good idea either, which is
>why the US government was put together in the fashion that it was.
>The US Constitutionally as it was set up, was NOT a democracy.
>About the only thing that could have been considered democratic at
>all was the lower House of the US Congress. The Senate was then
>appointed by the States, not under direct democratic vote by the
>people, and the Electoral College was (and is) responsible in the
>process of electing the President. The loss of the State's power
>to select who represents them in the US Senate was a tremendous
>loss of Constitutional checks against democratic mob rule.

Did you not see that I wrote "justice over rules" above? All this business
about constitutions and senates and colleges is just rules. It's no
substitute for justice.

>> >So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a
>>freely >elected government, when the people voted for that
>>government in the >voting booth?

>You replied:

>> Simple: the result was greater liberty & justice for all.

>Certainly NOT if the people don't want it, and the third party
>government imposes such "liberty" by brute force!

What if THE RIGHT people want it -- the people who don't want to be looted
-- and the force is being imposed against the looters?

>> And Frank, we've already established that YOU're for those things.
>>Don't you know by now that WE aren't?

>I have no idea who this "we" is that you constantly refer to.

Me and whoever agree with me.

>Some counties lean pretty heavily in such a direction right now.
>How committed are you really to liberty? Are you committed enough
>to migrate elsewhere and support such an effort, to achieve that
>goal?

I'm not convinced I've any to gain. I'm an activist; it's not my own
personal liberty I'm primarily concerned with, but everyone else's. If I
were primarily concerned with my own freedom, I wouldn't write about it
here. Instead, I'd do whatever was most cost effective to not be bothered.
I wouldn't concentrate on altering laws, but in operating within them or
breaking them without getting caught. And I'd do it very quietly.

I don't see much good of libertarian activists concentrating geographically.
To the extent we do that, we lose our influence elsewhere. Also, we become
more conspicuous and easier targets to hit. It's pretty much the Jewish
question. Are Jews safer being in their own, very conspicuous country, or
to be dispersed? Are they safer identifying themselves as such, or being
anonymous?

Besides, what do you really care about? The amount of taxes you pay, or
your after-tax income? The number of drugs prohibited you, or the number of
drugs easily available in your drug store? I'll take positive over negative
liberty, thank you. The ultimate bodily freedom is the grave, but I'm not
interested in that.

Truly I So Briney,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:05:16 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:

>Robert Goodman wrote:

>> And I wouldn't care if it took a coup to keep Gore out of the
>> White House.

>And, taking into account the tremendous loss of liberty underway
>under the Shrub Regime<tm>, just how much greater freedom do you
>believe we have now, rather than if Gore had been elected? I would
>suggest for one thing, that Congress would likely be more hostile
>to such draconian policies than is currently the case under Bush.

No, I think Gore would've been a very effective bipartisan-governing POTUS,
unfortunately.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 01:05:21 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in small part:

>I'm more
>interested in self-determination than I am with elections. I
>believe in self-determination, rather than external aggression to
>achieve the overthrow of any existing government. Sometimes
>self-determination takes a very long time to achieve, particularly
>if liberty is advanced. It happened eventually throughout eastern
>Europe and the former Soviet Union, most of that was largely
>non-violent, fortunately. And that didn't happen (although others
>might dispute this) through the use of external force. It also
>didn't result from the voting booth either.

But who's the "self" in "self-determination"? How is the political unit to
be determined? Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbska?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:46:10 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

As I wrote last night, I wanted to give more time to some of what you
wrote, today. It was rather late coming in here, and my faculties
weren't in enough order to deal with some of the substance you wrote.
Here we go...

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:

> >I'm more
> >interested in self-determination than I am with elections. I
> >believe in self-determination, rather than external aggression to
> >achieve the overthrow of any existing government. Sometimes
> >self-determination takes a very long time to achieve, particularly
> >if liberty is advanced. It happened eventually throughout eastern
> >Europe and the former Soviet Union, most of that was largely
> >non-violent, fortunately. And that didn't happen (although others
> >might dispute this) through the use of external force. It also
> >didn't result from the voting booth either.
>
> But who's the "self" in "self-determination"? How is the political unit
to
> be determined? Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbska?

This is an honest query, and I hope you won't turn this into another
word game.

You won't I'm sure agree with me on this, so I hope we can part as
just agreeing to disagree. Liberty is a two-fold proposition. I
believe in individual, personal liberty, and I also believe that
individuals have a right to choose their own government, that
government's boundaries, and what takes place in the context of law
within such boundaries. Each nation, as such, has sacrocinst
jurisdiction on whatever laws, morals, religion (if any), social
constraints, economic and political jurisdiction, decided as such by
natural processes of general agreement. Kind of like what ancient
tribes have done for millenniums!

In many cases, probably almost all cases really, this has been the
mechanism for survival over external aggression. That's just the way
it is, and I cannot change that. The order of civilization usually
finds itself at odds against others, those who wish to possess it for
themselves, for their own parochial reasons. That's pretty much
history. Not western history, eastern history, American history, or
any history. It's pure history.

If you refuse to accept the legitimacy of sovereignty, then there is
obviously nothing more than I can say to change your mind that it is
necessary for human survival. I can attempt to rationally explain
it. I can shout it to the rooftops, but because you believe each and
every individual has the natural recourse to somehow avoid it, we will
never agree on any ideal of a macro view on what constitutes
"liberty". Truth is however, government is necessary and always has
been. Be that a tribe, a monarchy, an association or whatever,
government is necessary for survival. That is what I was mainly
talking about in trying to define what the higher ideal of
"self-determination" is really all about. And, I know. It might not
be defined as a "libertarian solution", per se, yet it is. When
people form a government to protect their own interests it is a free
choice, even if that choice is not the result of a poll, or the
outcome of an election.

Everyone's fate is largely determined by their own choices. If
Afghans chose to be guided by the Taliban government, or accept Arab
militants (e.g. al-Qaieda) to protect their interests, then they are
pretty much bound to the results of such choices. It may be hell on
earth, but at least it was a hell that they chose to either accept, or
reject. As I wrote last night, there were always plenty of guns and
ammo, and over 3 million refugees, and no one seemed to want to simply
kill off the few members comprising the Taliban government, and simply
kill or expel the Arab militants in Afghanistan!

Contrast this, if you will, to the American patriots fighting against
British colonial rule! What's the difference? There's a huge
difference. The American patriots took on the greatest political and
military power on earth, and fought (albeit with French support,
explained in another post), but that too was a choice that eventually
each individual had to make for themselves. That too came by force.
Those supporting King George had their property confiscated, and they
fled to Canada, or elsewhere within the British empire. But this was
all a matter of individual choices. Robert, when you make a choice,
for better or worse, sometimes you lose, sometimes you win.

Now I'm about to get absolutely ugly. I don't agree with you. You
disagree that individuals have unalienable rights. You don't believe
that rights are universally a party of nature, that is the right of
free association, the right to free speech, the right to religious
choice, the right to do much of anything. If individuals have no
unalienable rights, then it follows that any right is protected by
yourself, against a multitude of other individuals, and some forming
governments and other associations, to take what "you personally"
believe are your rights, away from you!

Your argument here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It isn't
practical, nor is it even ideological! For you, there are no absolute
self-evident unalienable rights! Your own rights are what you, as an
individual, choose them to be. Now, what the fuck are you going to do
to protect them? You'd better find the best brute on the block to
protect your "self described" rights, and most likely, that brute will
have his own self-interest to preserve some hegemony of power, or your
about to be history! Isn't anarchy just wonderful? Hell now, it is
extreme hell.

And in this, I can't help you here. Because you have defined yourself
as an absolute arbitrator over what your rights might be, you're on
your own to defend them, always. And in such an endeavour, you will
look to others that might share such compassion for "rights" of your
own making and design, since no rights in nature exist at all. That's
also your argument, and has been for as long as I can remember anyway.

Let's go a bit further with this Robert. You now are faced with a
couple of things, first, you believe your rights are your own
business, and as such you have a right to them. Secondly, since
"rights" are NOT a given or norm of nature, you will naturally have to
defend them entirely by yourself. You'll obviously look for allies --
you'll seek to associate with others of like mind to yourself --
you'll form an association, a mafia, a group, and a government that
will support you, define the borders upon which your "self-appointed"
rights will be preserved!

What you propose seems to be along the order of a parochial "militia
movement" to defend what you collective believe constitutes what you
decide are your collective rights. Am I getting close? Then, why, do
you disregard the necessity for at least some form of limited
government in whatever form it takes? Before I close, why do you
believe that should not be recognized as a sovereign government, with
the right to self define itself as such. And, here's the clincher...
does YOUR government have a right to exist against aggression by a
foreign jurisdiction?

Please Robert. Don't be selective in this. Address this issue, and
everything I addressed in its total context. One-liners, and word
games ain't going to cut it here. There are no "rights" accept those
you individually choose to accept, along with your friends and those
you choose to assimilate as allies. Do YOU guys and gals, have a
collective right to self-determine what your rights are, and does your
collective group of co-subscribers have a right to exist under their
own determined choices?

Be forewarned. This argument may also be applied to Israel, to Iraq,
and to any other nation on the earth where other "individuals" have
made such choices in real time, and in real history, including what
comprises the US government.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 21:56:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I wrote:
> > election of their own choosing. There is still speculation that
> > President Bush wasn't REALLY elected, since there is still controversy
> > surrounding the ballot counting in Florida. It would be morally wrong

You replied:
> Gore's supporters counted the ballots their way, and he still lost. Keep
> up, Frank.

What can I say? This still seems to be the focus of many others that
still have questions about the legitimacy of The Shrub<tm> Regime's
rule, and authenticity.

So, what's your point? For me it's relatively easy, e.g.: I didn't
vote for the fucking bastard, and no, I do not support this
administration. Perhaps you did. I don't know who you voted for, or
what you expect, that's your choice. I know for damn sure I didn't
vote or contribute to this stinking mess, corruption and unlimited
government -- NO, NOT EVER!

So, what's your excuse for defending it?

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:25:55 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

At 19:49 08/17/02 +0800, you wrote:
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Erdman...
>
> > We supposedly helped depose (communist) Salvador Allende which resulted
in
> > ("right-wing") Augusto Pinochet running the country for just over a
decade
> > and a half.
>
>Ya, wasn't that really special?! I suspect there are some on this
>list who likely approve of such atrocious acts of terror by the US
>government. As I wrote Robert earlier, there is less contention over
>Allede's mandate to rule as G.W. Bush has with his controversial votes
>in the State of Florida! There was never any question that the people
>elected Allende!

Yup. "Illegitimate" Bush got 49.9% and Allende got a "mandate" with
36.5%. "Illegitimate" Bush had his party in control of the legislature
(ok, at least when the elections were over, he did) while Allende with his
"mandate" got to deal with a legislature controlled by an opposition party.

> > The interesting thing is that some of the
> > same people who are mortally afraid of Bush using the power and
popularity
> > he now enjoys to set up some sort of tyranny will refuse to acknowledge
> > that Allende was essentially doing the same thing in Chile (but Allende
was
> > doing far more than Bush--nationalizing industry, expropriating
> > privately-owned property and redistributing it, and imposing price
> > controls).
>
>So, how do you justify any US support for a coup against a freely
>elected government, when the people voted for that government in the
>voting booth? I submit to you that it is NONE of the U.S.
>government's business who people in sovereign nations elect to lead
>and represent them.
>
> > Not only that, but both right- and left-wing groups within the
> > country were arming, marching, and occasionally fighting. The military
> > coup (which ended with Allende shot dead in the presidential
> > palace--probably by attacking soldiers) had to quickly turn toward
rounding
> > up armed left-wing Allende supporters in order to prevent a prolonged
civil
> > war which many expected. That doesn't justify the killing that took
> > place. But on the other hand, the people most exercised about
"Pinochet's
> > 2,000-3,000 murders" aren't much concerned about how many people were
> > murdered by "Baby Doc Duvalier", Haile Salassie, Idi Amin, Fidel Castro,
or
> > Daniel Ortega--not to mention the various dictators and thugs that ran
the
> > Soviet Union, China, and eastern Europe.
>
>Now look who's strawman building. You conveniently list only marxist
>despots who murder.

Like Duvalier? Salassie? Amin? Looks like most of the ones I mentioned by
name were "right wingers". That constitutes strawman building? That
constitutes "only marxist despots"???

> What about the predecessor of Daniel Ortega in
>Nicaragua (Antonio Somosa (sp), who ran groups of notorious right wing
>death squads to help solidify his base of power. He eventually was
>overthrown and lived in exile in Paraguay (another right wing
>dictatorship) with an hellacious human rights record. By contrast,
>Oretega lost in what is considered a free election, and marxism was
>finally defeated in Nicaragua peacefully!

Hmm. Yeah, peacefully--after murdering a half million Miskito Indians and
agreeing to an election after years of fighting the Contras.

> > What really torques people about Pinochet (although they won't say it)
is
> > that he was successful. When he took over, there was a huge black
market
> > and a damaged economy (which was part of the reason that there even
*was* a
> > coup.) But Chile is now one of the more successful nations in Central
and
> > South America having one of the fastest-growing economies and a
per-capita
> > GDP second only to Argentina (without the abundant natural resources
that
> > early in the last century made Argentina a potentially larger and
wealthier
> > economy than the US!)
>
>I really don't know what your point is in any of this. Even if true,
>although I doubt Argentina's economic situation is the same as you
>quoted today, and you left out Brazil for some reason also.

Could be that Argentina is now in worse shape than Chile--although it would
need at least a 20% decline from its 2000 level because the Chilean economy
hasn't grown that much in the last two years. I was looking up the info in
the CIA World Factbook and it was only showing data for 2000. I left out
Brazil because it has a much lower per capita GDP than Chile does. (Chile
is at something like $10,100 while Brazil was at something like $6,700 (I'm
not going to look it up again, just to make sure.)

The point is that that people hate Pinochet because he was successful, not
because he was some kind of massive butcher (relatively speaking, he was a
minor murderer--if that).

>, it does
>not justify US force in foreign politics usually, unless in a declared
>war in which we have a clearly defined enemy to defeat. Pinochet did
>perform well usually in economic liberalization, and was chiefly
>instrumental in successfully privatizing social security. But for the
>US to interfere in Chile's political process undermines the principle
>of self-determination and free choice also. Using US intelligence
>resources, or even overt military aggression is something that
>libertarians should never accept as legitimate. Indeed, the
>Libertarian Party does not.

Actually, we had a declared enemy at the time. It was global
communism. You may not approve of the methods, but they were vastly
preferable to waiting for a communist state to emerge and then finding we
had to wage war against it to prevent it from destabilizing its neighbors
by exporting guerrillas.

> > Not only that, but from what I've read, Chile is rather stable, and in
some
> > ways more "libertarian" than the US is right now.
>
>I don't doubt that it is, since I consider the US to be governed
>largely with an executive branch and prostitute judicial system that
>borders on abject fascism. There are a lot of countries that are far
>more libertarian than the US government, particularly when you include
>the dual aspect of libertarian idealism, e.g.: both economic and
>social liberty. The Philippines is by far less economically or
>socially intrusive than is the US government, and I could name several
>others in the same category.
>
> > As one example, they
> > have a privatized "social security" system that is far beyond what any
> > politician is talking about for the US--and in Chilean politics, their
> > privatized system is the "third rail" (touch it and die).
>
>I'll give Pinochet credit for that one, and several other economic
>liberalization efforts that he brought about. That said, it still
>does not justify any US intervention or destabilization efforts to
>topple marxist Allende from power. Had the Chilean people themselves
>deposed Allende, and totally through their own efforts and resources,
>that could be considered morally acceptable.

Now you have gone off the deep end. If the people want to get rid of
someone they have to dump him without *any* help from us??? Are you
saying, then, that France was "unjustifiably intervening" when it sent
troops and ships to help 13 rebellious English colonies break away from
English rule?

> In fact, there is a
>government in place considerably north of Chile, where I would welcome
>such a change, driven by the people, if indeed it would bring about
>social and economic liberalization.

I'm beginning to wonder if you'd actually notice any such change....

>But since Carnivore might be tuning in, I won't identify such
>specifics any further.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:13:26 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>> But who's the "self" in "self-determination"? How is the
>>political unit to be determined? Yugoslavia? Croatia? Serbska?

>You won't I'm sure agree with me on this, so I hope we can part as
>just agreeing to disagree. Liberty is a two-fold proposition. I
>believe in individual, personal liberty, and I also believe that
>individuals have a right to choose their own government, that
>government's boundaries, and what takes place in the context of law
>within such boundaries. Each nation, as such, has sacrocinst
>jurisdiction on whatever laws, morals, religion (if any), social
>constraints, economic and political jurisdiction, decided as such by
>natural processes of general agreement. Kind of like what ancient
>tribes have done for millenniums!

>In many cases, probably almost all cases really, this has been the
>mechanism for survival over external aggression. That's just the
>way it is, and I cannot change that. The order of civilization
>usually finds itself at odds against others, those who wish to
>possess it for themselves, for their own parochial reasons. That's
>pretty much history. Not western history, eastern history,
>American history, or any history. It's pure history.

None of that gives a way to answer my question. I hope you understood why I
asked about Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Serbska. First, parts of Yugoslavia
broke away, mostly over ethnic differences. Yugoslavia claimed to be a
nation, with sacrosanct, as you say, jurisdiction, and said the breakaways
were illegitimate. Then within at least one of those breakaways, an ethnic
group suddenly found itself in the minority, so an area in which they were a
majority attempted to break away from one of the breakaways. How is it to
be decided which unit is legitimate?

>Your argument here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It isn't
>practical, nor is it even ideological! For you, there are no
>absolute self-evident unalienable rights! Your own rights are what
>you, as an individual, choose them to be. Now, what the fuck are
>you going to do to protect them? You'd better find the best brute
>on the block to protect your "self described" rights, and most
>likely, that brute will have his own self-interest to preserve some
>hegemony of power, or your about to be history! Isn't anarchy just
>wonderful? Hell now, it is extreme hell.

>And in this, I can't help you here. Because you have defined
>yourself as an absolute arbitrator over what your rights might be,
>you're on your own to defend them, always. And in such an
>endeavour, you will look to others that might share such compassion
>for "rights" of your own making and design, since no rights in
>nature exist at all. That's also your argument, and has been for
>as long as I can remember anyway.

>Let's go a bit further with this Robert. You now are faced with a
>couple of things, first, you believe your rights are your own
>business, and as such you have a right to them. Secondly, since
>"rights" are NOT a given or norm of nature, you will naturally have
>to defend them entirely by yourself. You'll obviously look for
>allies -- you'll seek to associate with others of like mind to
>yourself -- you'll form an association, a mafia, a group, and a
>government that will support you, define the borders upon which
>your "self-appointed" rights will be preserved!

>What you propose seems to be along the order of a parochial "militia
>movement" to defend what you collective believe constitutes what you
>decide are your collective rights. Am I getting close? Then, why,
>do you disregard the necessity for at least some form of limited
>government in whatever form it takes?

I don't disregard the value of such things. All I do is point out that one
must not confuse expediency with righteousness.

>Before I close, why do you
>believe that should not be recognized as a sovereign government,
>with the right to self define itself as such. And, here's the
>clincher... does YOUR government have a right to exist against
>aggression by a foreign jurisdiction?

How could my government "have" a right, when there are NO pre-existing
rights? I don't discount the usefulness of people organizing for just
purposes; all I say is that the products of organizations should be judged
on a case-by-case basis as to their justice. The mere fact that an
organization is undertaken by persons for at least the purpose of protecting
their interests, which interests include their own liberty, does not make
any particular thing that body does good or bad. Similarly, I think people
should be allowed to have guns, but that doesn't mean I think everything
everybody does with a gun is good or just!

Meanwhile, YOU have the problem of explaining how such an entity could have
rights that could include the infringement of others' rights.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:03:05 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> None of that gives a way to answer my question.

Okay. Fair enough.

> I hope you understood why I
> asked about Yugoslavia, Croatia, and Serbska. First, parts of Yugoslavia
> broke away, mostly over ethnic differences. Yugoslavia claimed to be a
> nation, with sacrosanct, as you say, jurisdiction, and said the breakaways
> were illegitimate. Then within at least one of those breakaways, an
ethnic
> group suddenly found itself in the minority, so an area in which they were
a
> majority attempted to break away from one of the breakaways. How is it to
> be decided which unit is legitimate?

For starters, I was puzzled why on earth you chose Yugoslavia as an
example in the first place. Yugoslavia was the creation of external
force. The fact that the borders were arbitrary, the ethnic groups
long considered hostile enemies, and a government held together only
be brute force as a Soviet proxy was doomed to unravel itself in short
order! Again, self-determination as I have been writing about is what
unravelled the artificial State, created by and held together by
external foreign force and intervention! Hardly a good representative
of your position so far, which is why I was so puzzled.

But to answer your question, Yugoslavia was never legitimate in the
first place, and the people eventually said so when the foreign and
internal powers were no longer able to hold it together. Yes, the
people had to right to overthrow it and to self determine the states
and political framework upon which they chose to govern them. And, if
you claim that it's just too messy of a problem, with genocide and
such, then ask yourself why is it such a stinking mess. The answer
lies again in external force and intervention for creating something
the people did not want. If anything that really underscores my
foreign policy position, and I fail to see how it helps your idea that
that self-determination is not ultimately defining.

In fact Robert, I can think of many other examples that exist to show
why such artificial boundaries and forced political unions hardly ever
work, when external force is the catalyst for their creation. Let's
example a couple more.

The former Soviet Union is a great example as well. Its demise was
not so brutal as that of Yugoslavia, but the same pattern emerges on
WHY it really became unglued. It too was the product of White Russian
occupation and colonial control, therefore that Soviet "Union" was a
union created and maintained by brute force. It certainly did not come
about as a result of self-determination. It was held together under
sever police state conditions, with a giant security and police force
that clamped the lid for decades on any desention. In other words, it
too was artificially contrived.

And again, as in the case of Yugoslavia, the people had every right to
rebel, dissolve their union, and self-determine the political
conditions that govern them. Again, they did. It is interesting once
again, that this reality, e.g., that the people did once again
self-determine their own borders and political framework, was
accomplish with NO external force being applied! If any external
pressure at all was present, it was Russia, attempting to coerce the
Russian Federation of Independent States. Some of that is practical,
and likely does enjoy some support from the people of the independent
states, for security and defence reasons if not for any other reason.

Well, guess what? There are a lot more examples to choose from here,
so let's just take a blanket approach and take a gander at Africa.
Massive European colonialism created countless artificial boundaries,
splitting and bringing together rival ethnic groups, and calling them
political territories. This practice certainly had nothing at all to
do with the will or self-determination of the people, who prior had
their own remedial political realities, mainly tribal, and of their
own choosing.

This too was all brought about through the use of external, and
sometimes brutal force. At the time that much of this was occurring,
it was justified by Britain, France and others as morally right and
necessary. A new philosophy was emerging, that of Manifest Destiny,
or, "the White Man's Burden". It was determined to be necessary to
bring civilization, and order, and social laws, and economy, and
religion, and education and the list goes on and on. I suppose you
could throw in freedom, liberty and all the rest of such concepts into
the equation to justify this nightmare that has subsequently
developed. The US government itself used this justification for
assuming colonial jurisdiction over the Philippines, and elements of
it appeared in justification for attempting to change Vietnam in the
Vietnam War.

Today, after decades of civil wars, ethnic rival conflicts, and
atrocities that far dwarf even Yugoslavia, in many cases even an
economic order has largely been replaced by politically contrived food
shortages, other heinous acts depriving humanity of even bare
necessities such as food and shelter. You can attempt to blame all of
this on Marxism if you want to, but that skirts the larger issue of
creating forced territories, and depriving people of the right to
self-determine their own lives and future. Do such people have a
right to rebel, overthrow such artificial political structures?
Certainly. Should external force be used? Well, to give you a clue,
it was external force that created the mess in the first place, and we
all know that to be sure.

A caveat here. In north Africa, most of the colonial states already
had their own boundaries before the French sent in their paid
mercenaries (the Foreign Legion) to assume political control over
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and most of west Africa. Italy's failed
attempt to colonize Libya also had a pre-existing ethnic group,
religion, and had solid political boundaries. Other such states
include Ethiopia and Egypt whose political boundaries remain
essentially unchanged from pre-colonial times. This further supports
the reality that self-determination, selfdetermine political
boundaries and a culture that largely remains intact, is less likely
to experience destabilization. After the French and Italians were
booted out, there wasn't really a severe problem with peacefully
redefining national goals within this region.

I previously wrote:
> >What you propose seems to be along the order of a parochial "militia
> >movement" to defend what you collective believe constitutes what you
> >decide are your collective rights. Am I getting close? Then, why,
> >do you disregard the necessity for at least some form of limited
> >government in whatever form it takes?

You replied:
> I don't disregard the value of such things. All I do is point out that
one
> must not confuse expediency with righteousness.

Well, in this case YOU seem to promote expediency with the Shrub
Regime's <tm> sabre rattling threatening to invade Iraq. What
"righteousness" here do you have in mind -- liberty? Will more people
be FREE after The Shrub takes out Saddam Hussein and the entire (or
almost the entire) islamic world rises up in its own "righteous"
indignation over arrogant US use of force? A provocative and
unilateral US attack on Iraq is exactly the last thing that we should
ever do right now. It's an action designed in hell.

I think we've got to consider a serious question right now. How the
hell do you bring about the goal of more freedom by arbitrarily
attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you, particularly when they
present to threat to you? You become an enemy (and it's your choice
in doing so), and as such, you no longer have any moral or high ground
to use diplomacy and reason to bring about liberty any longer.
Hussein is not posing any direct threat against the US government
unless we give him a compelling reason why we should be considered his
enemy. I believe the case has already been made that we have. That is
unfortunate. Have you really thought any of this through at all? The
US is not located anywhere in the close proximity to the Middle East.
What is this really all about? If Saddam Hussein were the Prime
Minister of Canada, I might have cause for some "US interest" and
security concerns. So, what is your motivation

> How could my government "have" a right, when there are NO pre-existing
> rights?

I suggest that is your dilemma here is not mine.

Maybe, that's the source of our contention in much of this, no?

It's your government, or at least a clan of like minded individuals,
and it's your choice. However, beginning with Cicero and others,
those, who through recorded history have identified rights common to
mankind, and define such as clearly established in nature, also have
choices. I have no such choices to make in anarchy, unless that is, I
have the power to force everyone else to accept such choices at the
point of a gun. And that power too is relatively nebulous. It can
easily just go away tomorrow if others wish to challenge such power.

I guess this is really where the rubber meets the road. Do you have
inalienable rights, and if not, then how do you define any notion of
what your rights might be? What do you do, if you are merely 5
percent of a minority who believe you, that might subscribe to your
notion of "rights"? I think this is an important consideration. On
the other hand, there are a host of others who have studied history,
and the development of "rights", and recognize that certain rights are
obviously essential and self-evident (as the Declaration of
Independence states). There is a science to this after all, historical
science nonetheless. If you disavow that as even a consideration,
then I fail to see why you suggest that I support a right that ONLY
YOU claim you have on the basis of raw power!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: national defense
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:23:59 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>For starters, I was puzzled why on earth you chose Yugoslavia as an
>example in the first place. Yugoslavia was the creation of external
>force. The fact that the borders were arbitrary, the ethnic groups
>long considered hostile enemies, and a government held together only
>be brute force as a Soviet proxy was doomed to unravel itself in
>short order! Again, self-determination as I have been writing
>about is what unravelled the artificial State, created by and held
>together by external foreign force and intervention! Hardly a good
>representative of your position so far, which is why I was so
>puzzled.

The very reasons you give are exactly why I chose it.

>But to answer your question, Yugoslavia was never legitimate in the
>first place, and the people eventually said so when the foreign and
>internal powers were no longer able to hold it together. Yes, the
>people had to right to overthrow it and to self determine the states
>and political framework upon which they chose to govern them. And,
>if you claim that it's just too messy of a problem, with genocide
>and such, then ask yourself why is it such a stinking mess. The
>answer lies again in external force and intervention for creating
>something the people did not want. If anything that really
>underscores my foreign policy position, and I fail to see how it
>helps your idea that that self-determination is not ultimately
>defining.

So it broke apart. Just arbitrary lines anyway, as you say, due to outside
influence. But how do you cut it -- presumably geographically -- so it's
not arbitrary and can be said to reflect the will of the locals? The areas
in question were all more or less integrated, so there were ethnic
majorities and minorities, but mixed no matter how you did it. So when a
republic broke away in which Serbians were a minority, was the result
legitimate? And when a piece of that broke away in which the Serbians were
a majority, was that legitimate?

I see very different approaches to this question. On one hand, Kendall And
Louwe in their canton proposal for South Africa prescribed that the canton
boundaries NOT be drawn along racial or ethnic lines. OTOH, my friend Bob
Blumetti is very partisan to "blood" theories of nation-building.

>I guess this is really where the rubber meets the road. Do you have
>inalienable rights, and if not, then how do you define any notion of
>what your rights might be? What do you do, if you are merely 5
>percent of a minority who believe you, that might subscribe to your
>notion of "rights"?

That's just as much a problem for you. What if when the lines are drawn by
the majority, you're part of the 5% identifiable minority that gets looted &
persecuted?

>I think this is an important consideration. On
>the other hand, there are a host of others who have studied history,
>and the development of "rights", and recognize that certain rights
>are obviously essential and self-evident (as the Declaration of
>Independence states). There is a science to this after all,
>historical science nonetheless.

If they were self-evident, they wouldn't be controversial! Why would you
even NEED a Declaration of Independence if it were just to say what
everybody already knew?

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: GA Cong. primary
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 09:02:39 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>, <drctalk@drcnet.org>

I notice RLC GA has endorsed Linder in the primary against RLC member Barr.
The two have nearly identical liberty ratings (pretty high), but RLC GA
likes that Linder wants to replace income with sales taxes.

Linder has been playing it loose lately re LP's attack ads against Barr,
neither avowing nor disavowing their message, after previously posting a
link on the subject from his WWW site. Linder's position is against medical
marijuana as well. The difference appears to be that on this as well as all
other issues, Barr is just more of a loudmouth than Linder. Linder probably
wouldn't've tried to stop every step of DC's medical marijuana ballot
initiatives, but would quietly have led a vote to over-ride their effect
when they passed, so in substance they'd be just the same. It all comes
down to symbolism, then. But LP should realize that while Barr is a
negative symbol for drug reform, he's much more widely known as a positive
symbol for freedom w.r.t. firearms.

Actually Linder may be slightly worse on the drug issue than Barr. Barr's
campaign has attacked Linder for his adopting support for a bill to have FDA
regulate tobacco products as medical products after Philip Morris (in which
Linder owned stock) took that position.

I'm interested in whether LP's ads (technically for the Rand campaign) will
wind up pushing Barr over the top by identifying him as the anti-drug
candidate. It's an open primary, meaning one doesn't have to be previously
enrolled Republican to vote in it. One never knows who'll be motivated to
come out and vote.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:19:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Sorry, folks, this is another long one.

Good, because my reply isn't going to be very long, only pointing out
historical facts and resources. By the way, I minored in Asian
History and have been an ongoing student of such most of my adult
life. Good luck.

> So Frank, can you point me to some documentation of this "herculean
> investment and aid" to build up Japan? I'm sure there's some reasonably
> "authoritative source" on the Web--if such aid existed.

Try reading the most authoritative source of east Asian History, just
for starters. The book is entitled "East Asia", written by three top
Asian history scholars: Reischour, Fairbank and Craig, some of the
most authoritative scholars on Asian History ever published. It is
remedial reading for anyone wishing to gain even a basic appreciation
for the social, political and economic realities that transpired in
Asia following the Second World War. The US government had decided
that Japan was the key as a political and economic counterweight to
both Soviet and Chinese ambitions in east Asia.

> To be sure, we
> basically ran that country for several years and when the Korean War
began,
> we dumped a lot more military over there which created some jobs (even
some
> that didn't require women. :-)

That too is an over simplification. We pumped the Japanese as a major
industrial and economic power to counter other political realities.
Other nations, such as the Philippines, that also hosted US military
facilities, NEVER received any significant economic aid! That also
includes both Taiwan and South Korea, both of which emerged in
economic significance mainly own their own, building also largely on
Japanese economic expansion.

> But there's *NO WAY* any of that (or the 4
> years of the Marshall Plan, from '47 to '51) brought them up to economic
> wealth nearly on a par with the US! In fact, what got the Marshall Plan
> going was that some of these countries were *so bad off* that we figured
> that if we didn't do *something* they'd degenerate into following whatever
> whacko blamed their troubles on their neighbors!

I thought we were talking about Japan, and east Asia? Apparently you
want to make shifts elsewhere. I have no idea why. I also wrote last
time, that Japan was NOT a benefactor of the Marshall Plan! I also
indicated, that the Japanese economic expansion was totally irrelevant
to that, didn't I?

> What really drove the
> Japanese (and Western European) economy was that they liberalized and
> companies were able to produce goods and sell them and profit from
> them.

This is ALL so much BULL! You have no idea what you are talking
about, and it shows. You can't link Western European economic aid,
with what took place with the US effort to build up Japan. No way!

> The Marshall Plan came with strings attached. "You get this money
> so your people will all have food and heat and clothes and shelter, but
> only if you get rid of your trade barriers and reduce your taxes on
> businesses, etc."

That's pretty naive when it comes to Japan -- the political goals were
very much different. Why do you believe that Japan's constitution
pretty much resembles our own, even though the Japanese have no social
basis for accepting such principles? It is nevertheless, Japanese
law, although it is totally foreign to their own sociological
understanding of principles! This is an interesting study in itself,
and if you care to pursue it further, there are resources far more
credible than internet links to get there!

> We talked about this before and you told the list that the Philippines has
> a 49% limitation on foreign investment in local firms (in other words,
> local ownership must be at least 51%) and that there were several other
> problems with setting up businesses in the Philippines. That's part of
the
> reason that the Philippines is doing so poorly, especially in comparison
to
> other places in that area which do not have those limits on businesses
> (like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and
Malaysia)

That's not either the point, nor the issue, and you know it. Japan
also had tremendous restraints on foreign ownership, as did South
Korea. All of the above nations you cite as references, also had
limitations on foreign ownership. The only possible exception to that
might have been Hong Kong, which was under the control of Great
Britain. Both South Korea and Japan have, however, recently over the
last few years, relaxed many of such constraints regarding foreign
ownership. The Philippines is in a state of flux, or change, on how
to deal with this, but that too in changing. The point I DID make,
was that Japan was the chosen counterweight to maintain US hegemony in
east Asia. Japan certainly knew that well, and even today relies
chiefly on the US nuclear shield as its main line of defence!

> Oh. So now US imperialism takes the form of IMF/World Bank financing and
> assistance? Well, I suppose that is just one more reason to stop sending
> US funds to those institutions.

Yes, it is. But that is only a starting point. All US taxpayer
funding of economic and military aid should come to an end in all
forms.

> A whole bunch of people think that they
> are *US* institutions rather than multinational ones and blame the idiocy
> of these institutions on "US Imperialism."

Well then, who the hell do you believe is the catalyst for such
institutions? Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Nicaragua, Columbia? Why are
confiscated US tax dollars being used to prop them up? You tell me
who funds these institutions, and you'll begin to realize that the US
government plays a central if not a decisive role. What would happen
say tomorrow, if the US government dissolved it membership in the
United Nations, if it terminated every conceivable international
global treaty regarding aid, trade, and economic global structuring?
What would really happen? What if we booted the UN out of the US and
off US soil? What if we failed to recognize any diplomatic immunity
or rights for UN diplomats? Well, who's going to pick up the tab, who
is going to host such an organization, and at the same time, pay for
it?

> Argentina's problem is not because of IMF or the World Bank, or anything
> except socialist policies that Argentina can't seem to get rid of. Early
> in the last century, they had the money to set up some super social
> programs, a great "safety net" for anyone that needed (or wanted) it, and
a
> great retirement program. Well, now the money isn't coming in for things
> like wood and beef the way it used to and so Argentina is trying to figure
> out how to keep paying for those programs.

I think we can drop this here. Mainly because that is an exact
picture of where the US itself will likely be in the next decade or
two. Keep in mind, that Argentina was the third largest economic
power in the western hemisphere until quite recently in terms of
historical context. To use your own words, we, in the US may soon
find that technology, and all other mainstays for economic order may
not be able to pay for the massive debts of social security, medicare,
and all other forms of social(ist) nets being promised to the American
people. There is a way out of this, but most likely we will choose to
go down the shitter ala Argentina and Brazil.

> Now, the IMF contributed, in a
> small way by helping Argentina defer the day of reckoning which, of course
> only made that day worse.

Yea, and will the IMF be around to bail out the US government for not
being able to balance the books? That day is coming also. The point
is here, is that the US government has little to do with the
centralization of financial control, as the Federal Reserve is NOT
either Federal, nor is there a Reserve!

> Hmm. And here I thought that all of these were "victims" of Western
> Imperialism. Malaysia and Singapore were a former British colony, but
> gained independence something like 40 years ago, so they're the least
> "victimized". Taiwan got cut loose by Carter in '78, but, of course, they
> still "suffer ongoing US imperialism" in the form of weapons sales and
> protection by the 7th fleet. Hong Kong was a British possession until
'99,
> thus a "victim" of "British Imperialism", and, finally, of course, South
> Korea and Japan "suffer" from the "US Imperialism" which takes the form of
> US troops and bases on their soil to this very day. Sounds to me like the
> best way to be a "success story" is to be a "victim" of Anglo-American
> "Imperialism". :-)

I can't go along with this, obviously. All I can say, is that it IS
western imperialism, but probably not generically a US product. We
need to address the issue of who owns the IMF? Who owns the Federal
Reserve? (certainly not the US government), and who owns and controls
politicians? Until we address this globalization thing, nothing else
will ever make any sense at all.

> OK. So China managed to do the right thing without being "victimized" by
> "US Imperialism". That still doesn't mean that being a "victim of US
> Imperialism" isn't an advantage. :-)

Now wait a minute. Did I say that? China just joined the World Trade
Organization under that organization's own rules and restraints. I
also mentioned that China will also lose its own sovereignty on the
basis of such membership. Which is exactly why I wrote as I did. Who
the fuck is the World Trade Organization? Is it the US government?
Who is it, really? Who's in charge, and who makes the rules?

> Let's see here, the ASEAN alliance contains:
> Brunei: GDP/capita: $17,600
> Cambodia: GDP/capita: $1,300
> Indonesia: GDP/capita: $2,900
> Laos: GDP/capita: $1,700
> Malaysia: GDP/capita: $10,300
> Myanmar (Burma): GDP/capita: $1,500
> Phillippines: GDP/capita: $3,800

(GROSSLY OVERSTATED, BY I WILL CONCEDE YOUR POINT NEVERTHELESSS...
Most filipinos do NOT make $3,800 a year, and I know that to be a
fact. Most exist and subsist on less than a dollar a day.) Try a
figure based on about $500 or less an year and you'll be far more
accurate.

> Singapore: GDP/capita: $26,500
> Thailand: GDP/capita: $6,700
> Vietnam: GDP/capita: $1,950

> For some of these countries, the question is, if they've just enjoyed
> "unprecedented economic growth" as you claim, Frank, where were they
before
> that??

Well, you got me hanging by the balls. After all, I live here. I
wouldn't know, how could I?

> Other than Brunei, this is pretty much a case for "Western Imperialism"
and
> "western" free economies. (I know almost nothing about Brunei other than
> that it gained independence from Britain in 1984 (more "Western
> Imperialism") and over half the GDP comes from exports of oil and gas and
a
> substantial portion of the remainder from overseas investments--meaning
the
> average "Joe" probably gets squat while the Sultan lives it up--in fact
> didn't Forbes or someone say he was the "richest man on earth"?)

Yea, you're right. You DON'T know very much. Sorry to burst your
bubble. And, here's the kicker. Most people in the region don't like
America! Including Brunei! They hate us. How are you going to deal
with that? Brunei is a very rich country, as you so stated. The
people consider us as infidels and our entire culture should be
destroyed. Welcome to reality.

> Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos famously rejected "Western Imperialism"--both
> through war and subsequent policy. Look where it's gotten them. Burma
was
> a British colony and has been wracked by war almost continuously since
> WWII--making it another place where a little "Western Imperialism" to end
> the warring and set up a democracy might have helped. Indonesia was a
> Dutch colony that gained independence in 1949 only to get 4 decades of
> "authoritarian rule", which apparently was better than communism, but only
> barely. We've already discussed why the Philippines didn't benefit from
"US
> Imperialism" and, of course, the remainder are happy beneficiaries of
> various levels of good ol' "Western Imperialism".

Boy, do you have a "real grasp" on history or what? Real history, real
realities, I submit you are waving the flag for US internventionalism,
and little more. You have NO idea at all how you piss off just about
everyone who lives in this region. You are the problem, and your
solutions are useless and hostile. How's that for a quick assessment
on things? It might be "your" way or the "highway", but there are
others, a great majority of such, who will wish nothing better than to
destroy you!

> Yup. Here we go again with International Monetary Fund apparently being
> run by the US. Of course, to some extent, the demands have been the
> correct ones. But if these economies were doing so splendidly, why did
> they need to run cap in hand to the IMF?

Oh God, is this logic great, or what? I probably can't change your
fetish for western idealism. I won't have to. The rest of the world
isn't going to tolerate such arrogance much longer. You and I have no
solutions. People have their own solutions, and they'll make up their
own minds in due course on what such solutions are viable, and what
are not. They have a right to do so, even if that means killing you,
and deploying hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre in New
York to get your attention.

I previously wrote:
> >On foreign policy matters, I guess we'll just have to agree to
> >disagree.
>
> That's fine, but you're going to state your opinions, you'll have to do a
> better job of backing them up.

No Lowell, I won't have to. The rest of the world will certainly be
capable in due course of backing up what they really want, in the face
of US imperialism and aggression. I know this will take a while for
this to sink in, and I know there is nothing I will ever say that will
convince you. Problem is, you and your utopia will be destroyed, as
it ought to be and should be destroyed. You're not talking about
liberty, you are talking aggression, imperialism, and the use of force
to force your own ideology and conclusions on the people who hate
you. That's the REAL reality of our time, and our time is very
limited. Trust me.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:25:42 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank asked:

>China just joined the World
>Trade Organization under that organization's own rules and
>restraints. I also mentioned that China will also lose its own
>sovereignty on the basis of such membership. Which is exactly why
>I wrote as I did. Who the fuck is the World Trade Organization?
>Is it the US government? Who is it, really? Who's in charge, and
>who makes the rules?

Its member states, who'd'ya think?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 08:24:22 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > Who the fuck is the World Trade Organization?
> >Is it the US government? Who is it, really? Who's in charge, and
> >who makes the rules?

You replied:
> Its member states, who'd'ya think?

I guess you are entitled to believe that if you want to. Oh well.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 22:34:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

>> > Who the fuck is the World Trade Organization?
>> >Is it the US government? Who is it, really? Who's in charge,
>>and >who makes the rules?

>> Its member states, who'd'ya think?

>I guess you are entitled to believe that if you want to. Oh well.
>Kindest regards,
>Frank
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
Who'd you think? Android robots from Mars? Your cousin Vinnie? Moonies?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Plan to invade Iraq
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 07:05:23 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Frank!
>Greetings again Lowell!
>
>"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Sorry, folks, this is another long one.
>
>Good, because my reply isn't going to be very long, only pointing out
>historical facts and resources. By the way, I minored in Asian
>History and have been an ongoing student of such most of my adult
>life. Good luck.

Ooh. I'm scared! Not!

BTW. Note that most of this came up because I originally said:
And finally as for the US being an "Imperialist Power", we're a pretty
benign one. Our former enemies are now our friends and allies (albeit
somewhat limp-wristed allies) and not only that, but within about 30-40
years of their defeat at our hands, were enjoying economic wealth almost on
a par with their former conquerer. All of the other "victims" of US
"imperialism" have also done reasonably well.

(Note: in the last sentence above, I probably should have said "Most"
instead of "All".)

Now Frank and I disagree about the *reason* that our former enemies are
enjoying economic wealth almost on a par with their former conqueror and
that disagreement temporarily blinded me to something else. The fact is,
we actually agree that the US's former enemies (at least from WWII) are
doing pretty well, and *the US* had a lot to do with that! Here are the
2000 GDP/capita numbers to put it in perspective (remember, Germany
absorbed an East Germany that was an economic basket case 10 years prior to
the 2000, the year for these statistics and that is included in its number):

Japan: 24,900
France: 24,400
Germany: 23,400
U.K.: 22,800

When you look at the caveat for Germany, the Axis powers (sorry, but Italy
was a minor player in WWII) did better than our allies. (Although Italy
didn't do too badly either, at 22,100.)

For all our supposed "imperialism", that's not too bad.

> > So Frank, can you point me to some documentation of this "herculean
> > investment and aid" to build up Japan? I'm sure there's some reasonably
> > "authoritative source" on the Web--if such aid existed.
>
>Try reading the most authoritative source of east Asian History, just
>for starters. The book is entitled "East Asia", written by three top
>Asian history scholars: Reischour, Fairbank and Craig, some of the
>most authoritative scholars on Asian History ever published. It is
>remedial reading for anyone wishing to gain even a basic appreciation
>for the social, political and economic realities that transpired in
>Asia following the Second World War. The US government had decided
>that Japan was the key as a political and economic counterweight to
>both Soviet and Chinese ambitions in east Asia.

Woopldy doodle! Look, I'd be shocked if our "herculean investment and aid"
(your words, Frank) to Japan has amounted to more than $100/person--since
1945! In fact, I'd be surprised if it exceeded $10 (which, BTW, would be
in the neighborhood of $10,000,000,000 or $10 Billion total!). I asked you
for some documentation about this "aid". You tell me to read a $104 book
(on Amazon.com)!! I don't doubt that it's good and authoritative, but I'm
not asking for every little detail of what happened, just some numbers on
Japan.

> > To be sure, we
> > basically ran that country for several years and when the Korean War
began,
> > we dumped a lot more military over there which created some jobs (even
some
> > that didn't require women. :-)
>
>That too is an over simplification. We pumped the Japanese as a major
>industrial and economic power to counter other political realities.
>Other nations, such as the Philippines, that also hosted US military
>facilities, NEVER received any significant economic aid! That also
>includes both Taiwan and South Korea, both of which emerged in
>economic significance mainly own their own, building also largely on
>Japanese economic expansion.

So the major difference between Japan's $24,900/person/year economy and The
Philippines' $3,800/person/year economy is that the US "pumped in"
$100/person to Japan over the last 55 years (I'll go with the outrageously
high number, here)? Are you really saying this, Frank?

> > But there's *NO WAY* any of that (or the 4
> > years of the Marshall Plan, from '47 to '51) brought them up to economic
> > wealth nearly on a par with the US! In fact, what got the Marshall Plan
> > going was that some of these countries were *so bad off* that we figured
> > that if we didn't do *something* they'd degenerate into following
whatever
> > whacko blamed their troubles on their neighbors!
>
>I thought we were talking about Japan, and east Asia? Apparently you
>want to make shifts elsewhere. I have no idea why. I also wrote last
>time, that Japan was NOT a benefactor of the Marshall Plan! I also
>indicated, that the Japanese economic expansion was totally irrelevant
>to that, didn't I?

As I pointed out at the beginning, here, this thread came up in response to
what I said about former US enemies and "victims of US
imperialism". That's a little bit more than just East Asia.

Also, I misread what you said about the Marshall Plan and responded
accordingly. My apologies. You are correct that you originally said Japan
did *not* benefit from the Marshall Plan.

> > What really drove the
> > Japanese (and Western European) economy was that they liberalized and
> > companies were able to produce goods and sell them and profit from
> > them.
>
>This is ALL so much BULL! You have no idea what you are talking
>about, and it shows. You can't link Western European economic aid,
>with what took place with the US effort to build up Japan. No way!

I was *not* linking aid of any kind with the building up of economies. The
aid (in both cases) was little more than a stopgap or a small boost. Even
with as much money as we sent to Europe, I'll bet it was peanuts on a
per-capita basis. Same thing in Japan. In both cases, it was establishing
the basis for freedom and allowing business to grow, prosper and profit
that allowed for the buildup of production and wealth.

> > The Marshall Plan came with strings attached. "You get this money
> > so your people will all have food and heat and clothes and shelter, but
> > only if you get rid of your trade barriers and reduce your taxes on
> > businesses, etc."
>
>That's pretty naive when it comes to Japan -- the political goals were
>very much different.

Ooh! So we had *sinister motives* for building Japan back up. Tremble,
tremble. Umm. Waitaminit! *So what?* They still benefited from our
"imperialism"!

> Why do you believe that Japan's constitution
>pretty much resembles our own, even though the Japanese have no social
>basis for accepting such principles?

Yup! We won, they lost. We forced it on them, so their "social basis for
accepting such principles" (whatever that means) is irrelevant. (Although
the form of government is a parliamentary one, more like the UK's--but
that's a minor detail.) The main thing, though is that with this
constitution forced on them, they've out-produced (on a per-capita basis)
the UK! So whatever "social basis" they had or hadn't, it's obviously
worked pretty well for them! In fact, it seems to me that this is evidence
that the principles our constitution is based on are applicable
world-wide! (Notwithstanding contrary psychobabble gobbledy-gook about
"social basis" or "socialogical understanding" or whatever.)

> > We talked about this before and you told the list that the Philippines
has
> > a 49% limitation on foreign investment in local firms (in other words,
> > local ownership must be at least 51%) and that there were several other
> > problems with setting up businesses in the Philippines. That's part of
the
> > reason that the Philippines is doing so poorly, especially in comparison
to
> > other places in that area which do not have those limits on businesses
> > (like Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, and
> Malaysia)
>
>That's not either the point, nor the issue, and you know it. Japan
>also had tremendous restraints on foreign ownership, as did South
>Korea. All of the above nations you cite as references, also had
>limitations on foreign ownership. The only possible exception to that
>might have been Hong Kong, which was under the control of Great
>Britain.

Oh, so *that's* the reason that Hong Kong had a per-capita GDP above all
the others mentioned above (except Singapore).

Seriously, why are Taiwan and South Korea doing so well while the
Philippines are doing so poorly? You've now said that Taiwan and South
Korea "NEVER received any significant economic aid!" But at the same time,
both Taiwan and S. Korea were "victims of US imperialism" in the most
obvious way, we had all kinds of troops and bases in both
countries! Taiwan was well on its way toward a first-world economy when
the US pulled out. (I *know* this Frank, I was there.) One reason is that
entrepreneurship was at least tolerated (if not encouraged) in Taiwan and
you've told me about how it was discouraged in the Philippines. Another is
that Taiwan did not have the kleptocracy that the Philippines had. A third
is that Taiwan did not have the problems with huge landowners running farms
with what amounted to sharecroppers that the Philippines had. My educated
guess (although I don't absolutely know for sure) is that this was a
carryover from Spanish colonial times and may have been extended somewhat
artificially by Americans or it may have simply been that the Americans
accepted the property rights as they stood at the time we took over from
the Spanish and that was enough to perpetuate the system. Basically,
everything I just said about Taiwan could also be applied to S. Korea.

> Both South Korea and Japan have, however, recently over the
>last few years, relaxed many of such constraints regarding foreign
>ownership.

Good. Now if Japan could lower its taxes, change some of its land laws
(which are keeping small farmers going, growing crops in the middle of huge
cities on valuable land), and ease some of its import restrictions, it
might come out of its slump.

> The Philippines is in a state of flux, or change, on how
>to deal with this, but that too in changing.

And the sooner they do it, the sooner they will start enjoying the benefits.

> The point I DID make,
>was that Japan was the chosen counterweight to maintain US hegemony in
>east Asia. Japan certainly knew that well, and even today relies
>chiefly on the US nuclear shield as its main line of defence!

You mean *THAT*'s all we've been arguing about here? Whether "Japan was
the chosen counterweight" to China? Shucks Frank, I'll buy that! Here I
thought we were talking about the role of freedom in creating a strong
economy and you seemed to be arguing that the *only* (or at least the
*main*) reason that Japan (and Taiwan and S. Korea) were so wealthy
(relative to the others in that area) was that Japan had received a whole
bunch of aid. Of course, we're so great at maintaining our "hegemony" that
we can't even get these countries we've got all this "hegemony" over to
vote with us in the UN much more than about 50%!

> > Argentina's problem is not because of IMF or the World Bank, or anything
> > except socialist policies that Argentina can't seem to get rid of.
Early
> > in the last century, they had the money to set up some super social
> > programs, a great "safety net" for anyone that needed (or wanted) it,
and a
> > great retirement program. Well, now the money isn't coming in for
things
> > like wood and beef the way it used to and so Argentina is trying to
figure
> > out how to keep paying for those programs.
>
>I think we can drop this here. Mainly because that is an exact
>picture of where the US itself will likely be in the next decade or
>two. Keep in mind, that Argentina was the third largest economic
>power in the western hemisphere until quite recently in terms of
>historical context. To use your own words, we, in the US may soon
>find that technology, and all other mainstays for economic order may
>not be able to pay for the massive debts of social security, medicare,
>and all other forms of social(ist) nets being promised to the American
>people. There is a way out of this, but most likely we will choose to
>go down the shitter ala Argentina and Brazil.

I'll agree with that, even though I think our economy may be able to take
more damage than Argentina's was. Still, I don't want to do the damage.

> > Let's see here, the ASEAN alliance contains:
> > Brunei: GDP/capita: $17,600
> > Cambodia: GDP/capita: $1,300
> > Indonesia: GDP/capita: $2,900
> > Laos: GDP/capita: $1,700
> > Malaysia: GDP/capita: $10,300
> > Myanmar (Burma): GDP/capita: $1,500
> > Phillippines: GDP/capita: $3,800
>
>(GROSSLY OVERSTATED, BY I WILL CONCEDE YOUR POINT NEVERTHELESSS...
>Most filipinos do NOT make $3,800 a year, and I know that to be a
>fact. Most exist and subsist on less than a dollar a day.) Try a
>figure based on about $500 or less an year and you'll be far more
>accurate.

Sure, and most people in the US don't make the $36,200 quoted for the
US. (I believe the average in Spokane is in the mid-20s.) So yeah, there
are some really rich people balanced by some really poor people. It should
go without saying.

> > Singapore: GDP/capita: $26,500
> > Thailand: GDP/capita: $6,700
> > Vietnam: GDP/capita: $1,950
>
> > For some of these countries, the question is, if they've just enjoyed
> > "unprecedented economic growth" as you claim, Frank, where were they
before
> > that??
>
>Well, you got me hanging by the balls. After all, I live here. I
>wouldn't know, how could I?

I don't know. You're the one claiming all the credentials and you're the
one who made the claim of "unprecedented economic growth". So, what's the
deal?

> > Other than Brunei, this is pretty much a case for "Western Imperialism"
and
> > "western" free economies. (I know almost nothing about Brunei other
than
> > that it gained independence from Britain in 1984 (more "Western
> > Imperialism") and over half the GDP comes from exports of oil and gas
and a
> > substantial portion of the remainder from overseas investments--meaning
the
> > average "Joe" probably gets squat while the Sultan lives it up--in fact
> > didn't Forbes or someone say he was the "richest man on earth"?)
>
>Yea, you're right. You DON'T know very much. Sorry to burst your
>bubble.

OK, so what did I get wrong? Obviously, you know what I got wrong, so tell
me.

>And, here's the kicker. Most people in the region don't like
>America! Including Brunei! They hate us. How are you going to deal
>with that? Brunei is a very rich country, as you so stated. The
>people consider us as infidels and our entire culture should be
>destroyed. Welcome to reality.

Woopie dingle! So they don't like us. Who cares? The "victims" of
"Western Imperialism" still look like they're doing a lot better than the
"non-victims".

> > Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos famously rejected "Western
Imperialism"--both
> > through war and subsequent policy. Look where it's gotten them. Burma
was
> > a British colony and has been wracked by war almost continuously since
> > WWII--making it another place where a little "Western Imperialism" to
end
> > the warring and set up a democracy might have helped. Indonesia was a
> > Dutch colony that gained independence in 1949 only to get 4 decades of
> > "authoritarian rule", which apparently was better than communism, but
only
> > barely. We've already discussed why the Philippines didn't benefit from
"US
> > Imperialism" and, of course, the remainder are happy beneficiaries of
> > various levels of good ol' "Western Imperialism".
>
>Boy, do you have a "real grasp" on history or what? Real history, real
>realities, I submit you are waving the flag for US internventionalism,
>and little more. You have NO idea at all how you piss off just about
>everyone who lives in this region. You are the problem, and your
>solutions are useless and hostile. How's that for a quick assessment
>on things? It might be "your" way or the "highway", but there are
>others, a great majority of such, who will wish nothing better than to
>destroy you!

Facts are stubborn things aren't they Frank? I point out that "Western
Imperialism" appears to result in better economic performance than the lack
thereof. In response, you rant about how much I'm pissing off people. You
know what? I don't care about pissing people off. I care about what it is
that's going to get them the economic growth they want.

Look, what US interventionism tended to do was create market economies,
capitalism, and the rule of law which leads to economic growth. Not
always, not perfectly, not painlessly. But it worked better than just
about anything else. And if you're running around the Philippines
spreading untruths about why it is that the Philippines isn't doing well
and why Japan is, then *YOU* are part of the problem. Now, you might be
liked by everyone you meet and you might be getting a lot of free dinners
out of it, but you're actually hurting them more than if you were punching
them out.

> > Yup. Here we go again with International Monetary Fund apparently being
> > run by the US. Of course, to some extent, the demands have been the
> > correct ones. But if these economies were doing so splendidly, why did
> > they need to run cap in hand to the IMF?
>
>Oh God, is this logic great, or what? I probably can't change your
>fetish for western idealism.

Actually, I don't think it is "western". Yes, I talked about "Western
imperialism", but I was being sarcastic in saying that the "victims" of
"Western imperialism" tended to do better than their neighbors. But what
makes "Western imperialism" work in Asia, South America, and everywhere
around the world where it is tried is the fact that the principles that it
embodies are principles that best answer the basic human needs of all
people--regardless of whether they are tall white people or little brown
people (or any other kind of people).

> I won't have to. The rest of the world
>isn't going to tolerate such arrogance much longer.

Like they say in Texas. "If it's fact, it ain't bragging."

>You and I have no
>solutions.

Speak for yourself. My solution is freedom, capitalism, the rule of law,
and democratically-elected representative government. You know, that thing
that keeps getting called "Western imperialism" when it is imposed or
pushed on other countries--which as I keep pointing out, tend to do better
as a result.

> People have their own solutions, and they'll make up their
>own minds in due course on what such solutions are viable, and what
>are not. They have a right to do so, even if that means killing you,
>and deploying hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre in New
>York to get your attention.

Yes, there are plenty of other people who think they have solutions. And
they will use force to impose those solutions on others. It's interesting
that the people "deploying hijacked aircraft into the WTC in NY" came from
some of the most despotic countries on the face of the earth. They want to
impose their solutions on me regardless of my supposed "arrogance" or lack
thereof. Their "solutions" are basically what they (falsely) accuse the US
of doing--stripping the wealth away from others and taking it for
themselves. But if the US were doing that, then how could the countries
we've been pillaging be wealthier than the ones we haven't?

>I previously wrote:
> > >On foreign policy matters, I guess we'll just have to agree to
> > >disagree.
> >
> > That's fine, but you're going to state your opinions, you'll have to do
a
> > better job of backing them up.
>
>No Lowell, I won't have to.

Yeah, I guess you're correct. You can simply keep making your unsupported
assertions and there's not a thing I can do to make you back them up with
actual facts (instead of claiming some kind of authority with your "Minor
in Asian History"). I suppose it's about time I go back to ignoring you
since reading you is generally a waste of time.

> The rest of the world will certainly be
>capable in due course of backing up what they really want, in the face
>of US imperialism and aggression. I know this will take a while for
>this to sink in, and I know there is nothing I will ever say that will
>convince you. Problem is, you and your utopia will be destroyed, as
>it ought to be and should be destroyed. You're not talking about
>liberty, you are talking aggression, imperialism, and the use of force
>to force your own ideology and conclusions on the people who hate
>you. That's the REAL reality of our time, and our time is very
>limited. Trust me.

I'm not too worried. You see, our freedom is our strength and the rest of
the world doesn't seem to be able to get quite the level of freedom that we
enjoy (your beer and cigarettes in the Philippines, notwithstanding). And
when they get close to our level of freedom, then they have no desire to
attack us. You see, Europe and Japan and several other places may not want
us attacking Iraq (as a for-instance), but they know we aren't going to be
attacking them. Likewise, in spite of our disagreements, they have no
desire or reason to attack us. Similar things can be said about a whole
host of other places, from Taiwan and the Philippines to most of South
America, to Africa, to most of South Asia. The remainder pretty much know
what they need to avoid doing to avoid going to war with US (for instance,
we probably are going to leave Burma alone, even though it's a horrible
dictatorship, and the generals that run Burma aren't going to be calling in
Al Qaeda because they don't want the consequences). Those (like
Afghanistan and soon, Iraq) who we end up going to war against will have a
regime change, getting new leaders, possibly a constitution (similar in
some respects to our own), the rule of law, and a more democratic form of
government. That will, in turn, set up the conditions for more personal
freedom and a better economy, leading to less reason for them to be mad at
us.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: WAR Fever Growing Quickly in ME - Who Will Strike First?
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:21:32 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Bill!

Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > I just received this press release moments ago, and believe that it is
> > time sensitive to pass it along prior to the outbreak of any
> > conflagration in the Middle East that may have greater consequences
> > than anything either the Shrub Regime<tm> and the news media moguls
> > have led us to believe this far.

You responded:
> Heh, when I read the subject line, I thought it was about Maine.

What can I say. I did the best I can.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 15:56:54 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Weekly subscriber update
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:56:45 -0000
From: Frank Reichert <libnw@usa.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

This is an automated weekly function to remind subscribers that your
subscription status is automatted. If you are gone for a few days on
vacation,
or for other reasons, you may quickly unsubscribe yourself from this list,
and
then subscribe at a later date when you return. There is no need to add a
subject line or text in these automatted messages. The addresses that follow
must be confirmed however for your own protection, in the event a third
party
wishes to unsubscribe or re-subscribe you.

To subscribe: mailto:libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
To unsubscribe: mailto:libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com

For assistance, you can reach the moderator at:
mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org

You may also accomplish these functions by going to our web site at:

http://www.liberty-northwest.org

Sincerely,
Frank M. Reichert
Moderator, Liberty Northwest Conference & Newsgroup

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Frank - A mouse in your pocket??
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:08:08 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hello, frank,

response below:

on 8/19/02 8:18 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

<snip>
> My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
> they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
> through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
> super than its own ability to maintain itself in power.

Right on, Frank! And the above, not liberty, has been the guiding force of
U.S. foriegn policy.

> This has nothing particularly to do with liberty at all.

Absolutely, as i see it. Ocassionally more liberty has been the result, as
in Grenada, but that has been a by-product, not the mission. Most often the
result has been the reverse.

> But the point is the
> US government can't legitimately mandate and support governments
> against the will of the people themselves,

Damn straight, Frank! - not "legitimately", but 'legitimate' has not stopped
the U.S., even for a second.

> and the argument that such
> a government will bring greater freedom is ridiculous, since in many
> cases people choose tyranny (as in America) over freedom.
<snip>

Yeah, they do Frank, but it's worse than that. Much worse. Many humans
have wanted to choose freedom, understanding it in their gut. And what
happened? In the Fifties the CIA (admitting to it now) subverted a
democratic election in a near republic, Iran. The CIA wanted someone they
could control, so they liked the Shah and his Savak secret police. What did
that give the U.S.? It gave it the embassy fiasco, and the Iotola. That
act has 'destabilized' the mid-east ever since, even more so than the
forced "creation" of the religious state known as Israel. Then, of course,
there was $6-billion worth of CIA financing for its ally at the time, Ossama
and the Taliban.

I sure you recall, Frank, like Ossama, Saddam was an ally of the U.S., too -
bigtime. Armed him, the U.S. did. When the Shah fell, as he had to, Saddam
was the buffer between Iran and Saudia Arabia. Saddam was the next nuttso
the U.S. put it's power behind. As I see it, with an insane foreign policy,
which has had nothing to do with liberty, the U.S. created the Iotola,
Saddam, the Taliban and lots else.

Who generated Castro? The U.S. with its support for the fascist, nuttso
Batista!! Same, same in the rest of South and Central America.

And who gave the U.S. the Vietnam war? Diem, the fascist puppet!! With
U.S. foriegn policy what it has been, those who feel the need for liberty in
their gut turned to communism. Didn't have to be, but they were driven
there by the U.S. support for fascism.

It wasn't Marx who generated the Soviets, it was the Czarists! For those
seeking liberty in their gut, the U.S. has been mostly on the wrong side,
claiming to speak for liberty while supporting fascism. Communism, fascism?
It would be a hard choice for me, too, given that choice - the choice most
often given by the U.S., with liberty never presented except as a
rationalization, with no truth to it.

Dunno what the foreign policy of a 'free state' should be, if that's not a
contradiction in terms, but i do know that the U.S. has not offered that
option.

I wish, Frank, you'd quit it with calling the U.S. us. What, Frank? Do you
have a mouse in your pocket? I **ain't** one of "us". I figure you are not
either.

Sincerly,

Larry




,

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Frank - A mouse in your pocket??
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:09:45 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

Again, thanks a lot. I'll deal with this tomorrow, when I have to
sleep and sobriety to handle this. It's very good, and I read it
all. Until tomorrow, good night.

larry fullmer wrote:
> hello, frank,
> on 8/19/02 8:18 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:
> <snip>
> > My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
> > they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
> > through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
> > super than its own ability to maintain itself in power.
> Right on, Frank! And the above, not liberty, has been the guiding force
of
> U.S. foriegn policy.

Again, I likely ain't goin' to agree with all you say here, but you
made a great start, and you addressed all the right issues.

I will get back with you tomorrow. It's now after midnight, my time
here, and I would rather devote more time to this tomorrow. Thanks so
much for coming back on this issue.

Kindest regards, again,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Frank - A mouse in your pocket??
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:39:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

Now I can finally get back to this.

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

I previously wrote:
> > My point has been, that if the people have a government in place that
> > they will not support, the only way such a government could survive is
> > through the brute force of a third party superpower, and least more
> > super than its own ability to maintain itself in power.

You replied:
> Right on, Frank! And the above, not liberty, has been the guiding force
of
> U.S. foriegn policy.

I agree with that Larry. Problem is, as long as I can remember,
dating back to the Eisenhour days, politicians have always justified
US military aggression as defeating tyranny, and anti-freedom forces
such as "communism" (a big one in the long cold war days). Now we are
being spoon fed that Saddam Hussein is a dictatorial despot that keeps
his own people in bondage. The justification for removing him is
largely seen as an opportunity to bring in "democracy" and a freer
society!

The fiction here is that the US government supported the present Iraqi
regime against its war with Iran, providing military aid, all the
while knowing that Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran in
the process. We didn't object to that then, simply swept it under the
rug and ignored it.

There are many other dictatorial regimes just as bad, such as Saudi
Arabia, which by the way, is most likely the highest contributor in
monetary terms to islamic terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda! You
are correct, none of this has very much at all to do with liberty, and
it doesn't really make any sense either.

> Absolutely, as i see it. Ocassionally more liberty has been the result,
as
> in Grenada, but that has been a by-product, not the mission. Most often
the
> result has been the reverse.

US foreign policy and the result of decades of military adventurism by
the US government has been a disaster, particularly in terms with our
relations with islamic states. It is because we supported for decades
the dictatorship of the Shaw of Iran that we ended up as "The Great
Satan" when the Iranian people rose up and deposed him. Even now,
Iran is undergoing moderate change, and seems to be reaching out to
end much of the animosity with the US government, only to be
classified by the Shrub Regime<tm> as part of the "axis of evil"!

I previously wrote:
> > and the argument that such
> > a government will bring greater freedom is ridiculous, since in many
> > cases people choose tyranny (as in America) over freedom.

You replied:
> Yeah, they do Frank, but it's worse than that. Much worse. Many humans
> have wanted to choose freedom, understanding it in their gut. And what
> happened? In the Fifties the CIA (admitting to it now) subverted a
> democratic election in a near republic, Iran. The CIA wanted someone they
> could control, so they liked the Shah and his Savak secret police. What
did
> that give the U.S.? It gave it the embassy fiasco, and the Iotola.

Noted, and I agree.

> That
> act has 'destabilized' the mid-east ever since, even more so than the
> forced "creation" of the religious state known as Israel. Then, of
course,
> there was $6-billion worth of CIA financing for its ally at the time,
Ossama
> and the Taliban.

It's amazing how alliances can be reversed so quickly, then spoon fed
to the American people as an opportunity to bring about even more
FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY. The real reason is more control and hegemony by
the US government, as was the case in Iran in the 50's as you note, in
bringing to power the Shaw's regime.

> I sure you recall, Frank, like Ossama, Saddam was an ally of the U.S., too
-
> bigtime. Armed him, the U.S. did. When the Shah fell, as he had to,
Saddam
> was the buffer between Iran and Saudia Arabia. Saddam was the next nuttso
> the U.S. put it's power behind. As I see it, with an insane foreign
policy,
> which has had nothing to do with liberty, the U.S. created the Iotola,
> Saddam, the Taliban and lots else.

You got that right, and meanwhile the Shrub Regime<tm> is sailing
right along with high public approval ratings in conducting foreign
policy! This foreign policy remains a disaster, and it can only get
much worse as one islamic nation after another boots us out.
Eventually this could become both economically and physically
catastrophic in terms of increased terrorism, attacks upon US
political and economic targets, and a declining economy to pump up and
support various puppet regimes.

> Who generated Castro? The U.S. with its support for the fascist, nuttso
> Batista!! Same, same in the rest of South and Central America.
> And who gave the U.S. the Vietnam war? Diem, the fascist puppet!! With
> U.S. foriegn policy what it has been, those who feel the need for liberty
in
> their gut turned to communism. Didn't have to be, but they were driven
> there by the U.S. support for fascism.

Even Ho Che Menh once held in high esteem George Washington, and many
of America's founders.

> Dunno what the foreign policy of a 'free state' should be, if that's not a
> contradiction in terms, but i do know that the U.S. has not offered that
> option.
> I wish, Frank, you'd quit it with calling the U.S. us. What, Frank? Do
you
> have a mouse in your pocket? I **ain't** one of "us". I figure you are
not
> either.

As you know, I use the term only as a convention. You also know, I do
not support US foreign policy past or present for the last five
decades and longer. Come to think of it, I don't support US economic
policies either, since the beginning of the Federal Reserve and the
imposition of the marxist graduated income tax to provide collateral
against the debt incurred by the Fed's monetary inflationary agenda.
And in further retrospect, I don't support the US government's
domestic policies either, as they are either fascist, or leaning in
many cases toward a marxist orientation, e.g.: Social Security,
Socialized medicine, and State sponsored public education. The
Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than the origin of a
vast centralized fascist gestapo under the central control of the
Executive Branch. It's limits are rather arbitrarily defined, and its
future powers may well become all inclusive.

No, "I ain't one of "us" either, Larry. Thanks again.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Self determination...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:33:51 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Robert, and everyone else!

Robert finally posted a lot of great stuff to consider, and a lot of
it rather sober and provocative. And, in some cases, I agree with
him. Unfortunately here in the Philippines it is 11:30 p.m., and I'd
rather take this up tomorrow when I have a lot more time to devote to
this.

Stay tuned.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: None So Blind, None So Deaf
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 23:51:53 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

I do not agree with all of this. But nevertheless I am forwarding it
here right now because it is worth a read. And, I hope everyone will
read this. I am also not forwarding the source from where I received
this, because I have not asked for or received such permission. And,
this is not a quote, as I am otherwise publishing it in its entirety
as I received it. I didn't write it either, so don't come back and
claim that I support all of such tenants. I don't, but it's still a
very good read.

Kindest regards,
Frank

None So Blind, None So Deaf
by Edgar J. Steele // August 18, 2002

Hear now this, O foolish people,
and without understanding;
which have eyes, and see not;
which have ears, and hear not:
Fear ye not me?
---Jeremiah 5:21-22

Football again! Kids getting ready for school. Shorter summer days.
Barbecues. Family. The Dow is rallying. Normal.

Life is good. Enjoy it. Savor the taste. Pack away memories to
caress in
future years, because America as you know it is over.

No? You think not? Just more conspiracy ranting from the Internet?
Like
Y2K, maybe? Not a chance.

There are none so blind, as those who will not see. The evidence
literally
surrounds us, yet most refuse to see it for what it is.

Look - you can see the stock market sucking in the last possible bit
of the
rubes' money, before heading for the cellar. Right out in the open,
the
American government is frantically consolidating power for the
terrible
struggle it sees just ahead, a struggle for its very survival. The
rest of
the world, which sees so much more clearly than America, is girding
for
hard times. They know that hard times means war. And war means death
- on
a global scale.

None so deaf, as those who will not hear.

Listen - you can hear the death throes of the American economy, the
engine
that drives the global economy. Record (and massive) corporate
bankruptcies. Record personal bankruptcies. Unemployment as far as
the
eye can see. Public debt has advanced so far and so fast that when
interest rates rise, as they always do, there will not be enough tax
revenue, even, for the interest on the debt.

All major banks, every single one of them, are teetering right on the
edge,
owing to their unprecedented derivative "investments" (which are what
kept
the stock market up and the gold price down for so long,
incidentally); it
is not a question of "if" they will fail - they will, and soon. Right
now,
you can see the effects of this policy spreading from one South
American
country to another, as their banks fail and their economies follow.

The stock market bubble gave way to the real estate bubble, but that
finally is starting to deflate, too. Things are spiralling out of
control
for the wunderkinds who thought they could make the good times last
forever.

Nobody but the Zionist Neo-Conservative is happy with the warpath
America
has set upon. Remember when the sole objective was to root out Bin
Laden?
Then, Al Qaeda? Then, the Taliban? Then, all of Afghanistan got
carpet
bombed?

Now, we're going to kill Saddam and replace the Iraqi government with
puppets like those in Afghanistan. And, we're tuning up for Saudi
Arabia,
can you believe it?

We have declared war on Islam, pure and simple, and we are not going
to
stop until we make the world safe for Israel.

Whatever happened to Bin Laden, by the way?

With hard times and an increasingly unpopular war will come public
protest
on a scale never before seen in America. Prompted by the entitlement
mentality created within the last generation and fueled by the massive
immigration of the past two decades.

America's black underclass is seething. Hispanics have all but made
Aztlan
a reality. Whites are confused and getting angry. Bush knows this.

Bush also knows that survival of his government depends upon its
ability to
control the American populace.

Just this past week, Bush authorized American military and
intelligence
services to begin murdering suspected terrorists in whichever country
they
found them...including America. Read that last sentence again and let
it
sink in for a moment.

People, including American citizens, have already been disappearing -
literally - with their families frantic with worry and knowing not
what has
become of them. How long before Bush and his henchmen begin to apply
the
terrorist label to people like the author of this essay - or its
reader?

Ashcroft publicly acknowledged for the first time, also this past
week,
that huge concentration camps in remote areas exist. For years,
rumors of
these camps have been on a par with UFOs, but now they are legitimate.
Some are for the expected refugees from city bioterrorism and some are
for
"enemy combatants" within America. Makes you wonder just how long
this War
on Terrorism has been planned, doesn't it? Lincoln had thousands of
his
critics arrested and held in such camps during the civil war. We
rounded
up Japanese-Americans for such camps during WWII. Don't think for a
moment
that Bush won't do the same.

All in addition to recent radical changes eliminating the need for
search
warrants or probable cause, establishment of military tribunals,
elimination of posse comitatus restrictions (so that soldiers may be
used
in American streets) and a host of other police-state directives.

In short, America's government has abandoned all pretense that the
Constitution still has any effect. Now exposed to full view, it must
dart
to the finish, before many more of us wake up.

Bush knows the only way out of the coming Depression (yes,
grasshopper, not
merely recession) is war, just like the last time. Bush knows that he
will
need to create an excuse to go to war, just as Roosevelt needed an
excuse
to enter his war. Did you know that, already, we occupy both northern
and
southern Iraq? All Bush needs is the excuse - an Archduke, a
Lusitania, a
Reichstag Building, a Pearl Harbor, another 911.

Wake up. Look. Listen. Do the math.

Get ready, because it is not going to be pretty. Get your family to
safety. Get a financial emergency plan in place. Start thinking
now, not
too late...though, for some, it is already too late.

-ed

"I didn't say it would be easy. I just said it would be the truth."
- Morpheus

Copyright © Edgar J. Steele, 2002

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: None So Blind, None So Deaf
Date: 20 Aug 2002 15:28:49 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 09:51, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Greetings everyone!
>
> I do not agree with all of this. But nevertheless I am forwarding it
> here right now because it is worth a read. And, I hope everyone will
> read this. I am also not forwarding the source from where I received
> this, because I have not asked for or received such permission. And,
> this is not a quote, as I am otherwise publishing it in its entirety
> as I received it. I didn't write it either, so don't come back and
> claim that I support all of such tenants. I don't, but it's still a
> very good read.

Leaving this in so it remains clear Frank did not author the referenced
material.

> Look - you can see the stock market sucking in the last possible bit
> of the
> rubes' money, before heading for the cellar. Right out in the open,
> the

Awww, Chicken Little learned how to type.

>
> Listen - you can hear the death throes of the American economy, the
> engine
> that drives the global economy. Record (and massive) corporate
> bankruptcies. Record personal bankruptcies. Unemployment as far as
> the
> eye can see. Public debt has advanced so far and so fast that when
> interest rates rise, as they always do, there will not be enough tax
> revenue, even, for the interest on the debt.

Boy, talk about ignorance and misinformation. Well, let us look at some
facts, shall we?

Fact is business bankruptcy is *gasp* DECLINING!

In fact, BUSINESS filings for the 3-month period ending June 30 totaled
9,695, down 6.4 percent from the 10,330 bankruptcy business cases filed
in the same period in 2001. NON-BUSINESS filings for the 3-month period
ending June 30 increased less than one percentage point (0.2 percent),
from 390,064 in 2001 to 390,991 in 2002.

Of further interest, is the *fact* that since 1980 (when business
filings were 43,694), the highest year for business filings was 1987,
with 82,446. last year, it bumped up to 40,099. At the current rate, we
will be under that figure by the end of the year.

Here is a quick rundown of the last two decades of business bankruptcy
figures:
1980 43,694
1981 48,125
1982 69,300
1983 62,436
1984 64,004
1985 71,277
1986 81,235
1987 82,446
1988 63,853
1989 63,235
1990 64,853
1991 71,549
1992 70,643
1993 62,304
1994 52,374
1995 51,959
1996 53,549
1997 54,027
1998 44,367
1999 44,367
2000 35,472
2001 40,099

Funny how that does not support this Chicken Little's claims, isn't it?
I guess you could say that 2000 broke a twenty year LOW in business
bankruptcy filing; as both percentage of businesses, and raw number of
them.

What is further, is that this is yet another case of
"single-number-itis". One thing that is NOT done by the previous author,
is a comparison of bankruptcies to population. You would think such a
thing to be standard, yet in people afflicted with paranoid
singlenumberitis, it is often overlooked, or outright ignored.

For example, let us say that in year 1, there are 50 business
bankruptcies. In year 5 there are 500. Sounds bad, the economy is
collapsing, yadda yadda yadda, right? Not necessarily, since I have not
given you the whole picture. In year one there were 500 businesses. Ten
percent filed. In year 5 there 50000, or 1 percent. Focus on the "raw"
number, and you lose sight of the reality.

So what is the current situation? What is the percentage of businesses
filing bankruptcy? Is it rising, falling, maintaining? Well, there are
over 7 million businesses in the US. It doesn't take a genius to see
that 40,000 is less than a single percent of 7,000,000. In fact, it is a
little over a half of one percent. Fact of the matter is, that then
number of businesses each year has been steadily increasing. On average
there is a *net* increase of nearly 70,000 businesses each year.

Well, shall we look at personal filings then? last year we hit a peak of
1,452,030 non-business filings. Sounds pretty big, eh? Well, that is 1.5
million out of nearly 300 Million people. Again, less than one percent.

It is ignorant, and deceitful to make comparisons between years based on
raw numbers. one simply *must* take into account all factors, such as
growth of the field.

"Unemployment as far as the eye can see"? The author must be very
short-sighted. Unemployment is at only 5.9%. Still within the desired
range.
Despite the media hype over last year's economy, personal income, and
personal disposable income, has shown an increase month over month for
every month since December 1998 except two: last August and October.
September 2001 saw a near complete recovery of that amount, and December
surpassed July's number.

Gee, the more you look at reality, the more the author's claims exposed
as the tripe they are.

Further, bad debt costs account for approximately 9.6% of total nonfarm
business income. Interest paid by persons? Well, out of 7.2235 trillion
dollars in personal outlays in 2001, only .5554 trillion of that was to
interest.

>
> All major banks, every single one of them, are teetering right on the
> edge,
> owing to their unprecedented derivative "investments" (which are what
> kept
> the stock market up and the gold price down for so long,
> incidentally); it
> is not a question of "if" they will fail - they will, and soon. Right
> now,
> you can see the effects of this policy spreading from one South
> American
> country to another, as their banks fail and their economies follow.

I note there is no actual data here, either. No evidence, just clucking.
The rest of Chicken Little's fantasy is trimmed. Since he provides ZERO
evidence to support any of his claims, and in fact the data stands in
opposition, the value of his writings is exceedingly minor, IMO. The
only value I see in it was the evidence that the author suffers from
"paranoid singlenumberitis".

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Declaration of Dependence
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:42:00 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

By Executive Order from the President of the United States:

The Declaration of Dependence

Article I. Because the citizens are stupid and dysfunctional and
cannot manage their own lives the Government will now do so for you.
The Constitution is now suspended.

Article II. All guns, baseball bats, big sticks, numchucks, and
slingshots must now be turned in, within seven (7) working days at
your nearest Center to Enforce Compliance which is located at your
police station.

ArticleIII. Cigarette smoking is now an act of terrorism that will be
prosecuted in the United Nations World Court, and punishable by
public stoning or beheading.

Article IV. Your issue (sic: "children") are now property of the
State. You have seven (7) working days to turn them into the nearest
VI Lenin State Orphanage operated by the Ministry of Life Micro-
Management. Report to the de-lousing chamber to make the transfer.

Article V. All private property is now property of the State. You may
lease back your home, car, furniture, and clothing from the State for
an amount that will be calculated to be 438% of your current income.

Article VI. All citizens must maintain compulsory insurance on all
property that they do not own and which they lease back from the
State, including clothing.

Article VII. There will be NO SMOKING/ NO PETS in any residence.
Officers of Compliance will conduct random spot checks and
surveillance. Violators will be transferred to the nearest WHO
internment camp for enforced "retraining." A sum equal to 742% of
your income will be appropriated to re-inburse the Gov't for the "re-
training" that you didn't want in the first place.

Article VIII. The Courts are now closed to the people. The Courts are
for the sole use of the Gov't to prosecute the citizens for non-
compliance issues.

Article IX. All citizens will serve 10 hours each week of MANDATORY
shopping time at Walmart and spend no less than 113% of their weekly
income to nurture and reinforce government mandated addictive
consumerism.

Article XI. Independent thinking is now a felony punishable by a
completely arbitrarily determined prison sentence.

Article XII. All citizens must report for State imposed counselling,
and will work vigilantly, in full cooperation, to: 1-discover why
they are human, and 2- to vigilantly monitor any lapses of
appropriate attitude and gratefullness to the Gov't.

Article XIII. All people (outside of the Gov't) are now equal. To be
fair to all, we will equalize to the lowest common denominator.

Article XIV. Same sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
the United Nations World Court.

Article XV. Any works of, or references to the deposed Constitution,
Delaration of Independence, Bill of "Rights" (snigger..), American
history as not written by John Dewey, the subversives Ward and June
Cleaver and Ozzie and Harriet Nelson, Norman
Rockwell, or Mayberry are now delared articles of subversion and
allusions to such will be a felony act of treason.

Article XVI. All citizens must report for sexuality indoctrination.

Article XVII. Members of the Gov't, the Legislatures, the Office of
dependence Enforcement, Ministry of Life Micro-Managemnet will be
except from these laws.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: OOPS! correction...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:36:42 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

By Executive Order from the President of the United States:

The Declaration of Dependence

SHOULD read:

Article XIV. OPPOSITE sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
the United Nations World Court.

OOOOPS!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: OOPS! correction...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:15:39 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

justiceforfamilies@attbi.com posted a nutso-conservative rant in the
form of an imaginary `Declaration of Dependence', which included the
following:

> Article XIV. Same sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
> the United Nations World Court.

The poster then found it necessary to post the following correction:

> The Declaration of Dependence SHOULD read:
>
> Article XIV. OPPOSITE sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
> the United Nations World Court.
>
> OOOOPS!!!!

Ironically, it is by issuing this correction that the poster gives
him/her/itself away, as a loony-right nutcase rather than anything
resembling a libertarian. If the intention of this Article was to
suggest that the Coming Fascist Regime will intrude into people's
private lives by banning one government-disfavoured sort of personal
relationship, the Declaration as issued made that point just as
effectively as did the `correction'. Why did the poster feel it
necesary to change the example given? Why would anyone see a ban
on one sort of cohabitation as more objectionable than another?

I think the answer is pretty obvious; no libertarian of any
description would see a difference worth making between the original
piece and the correction, but a nutcase from the so-called `social
conservative' sector would. I think our anonymous poster, who properly
regards with horror the imaginary (and utterly unrealistic) prospect
of a ban on mixed-sex cohabitation, not only would not regard a ban
on same-sex cohabitation with equal horror, but would actively support
such a ban. Indeed, he/she/it probably regards those courts which have
struck down such bans or rendered them unenforceable in some states as
`judicial activists', and those legislators who have repealed the bans
in other states as betrayers of the republic. (And I think chances are
good that if you replaced `sex' with `race', and swapped `same' and
`opposite', the same would be true - JFF would probably regard with
horror a ban on same-race cohabitation, but I suspect secretly wishes
bans on mixed-race cohabitation could be reinstated.)

--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: OOPS! correction...
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:57:18 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Zev wrote in part:

>justiceforfamilies@attbi.com posted a nutso-conservative rant

Nah, I think it was just a satiric piece.

>> Article XIV. Same sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
>> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
>>in the United Nations World Court.

>The poster then found it necessary to post the following correction:

>> The Declaration of Dependence SHOULD read:
>> Article XIV. OPPOSITE sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
>> offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
>>in the United Nations World Court.
>> OOOOPS!!!!

>Ironically, it is by issuing this correction that the poster gives
>him/her/itself away, as a loony-right nutcase rather than anything
>resembling a libertarian.

Maybe. But it could just as well be that since the first version would
affect far fewer than the 2nd, the 2nd version was thought to be a better
example of social engrg.

Other parts of the piece didn't fit the stereotypic "loony right", inasmuch
as they decried the TV shows that traditionalist conservatives get nostalgic
for, and made a big deal about excessive Wal-Mart shopping (which admittedly
COULD be a target of the loony right, but usually isn' thought of as such).

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: OOPS! correction...
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:58:10 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to everyone...

> Ironically, it is by issuing this correction that the poster gives
> him/her/itself away, as a loony-right nutcase rather than anything
> resembling a libertarian. If the intention of this Article was to
> suggest that the Coming Fascist Regime will intrude into people's
> private lives by banning one government-disfavoured sort of personal
> relationship, the Declaration as issued made that point just as
> effectively as did the `correction'. Why did the poster feel it
> necesary to change the example given?

I don't know either, but after reading both over, I'm wondering
whether the correction just an attempt to broaden the scope somewhat.
At any rate, I haven't been able to communicate with the poster since
they subscribed. I usually can an autoresponder saying they receive
too much email to answer each and every one of them, then thanking me
for tuning in to their site, etc. Based upon what I could find out,
they seem to be a right wing pro-family organization, and most
directly against Child Protective Agencies and other government
organizations, including public schools, the undermine a family's
right to manage itself.

I haven't spent enough time reading their material to determine if
they lean toward libertarian idealism, or are rather a group of right
leaning conservatives.

> Why would anyone see a ban
> on one sort of cohabitation as more objectionable than another?

I don't believe in reading between the lines as a way of getting into
the mind of such an author, unless clear biases are revealed much more
clearly than was the case here.

> I think our anonymous poster, who properly
> regards with horror the imaginary (and utterly unrealistic) prospect
> of a ban on mixed-sex cohabitation, not only would not regard a ban
> on same-sex cohabitation with equal horror, but would actively support
> such a ban.

That appears to be a giant leap, Zev.

The article's intent appears to be more of disdain for intrusive big
government, in the Orwellian fashion, than any attempt to promote even
more laws regarding free choices regarding cohabitation. That my take
on the read anyway.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: self-determination
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:28:44 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

If I've understood Frank's writing on this subject, he seems to think
that whatever government exists in a country is the result of the
`self-determination' of `the people' of that country, unless and until
`the people' replace it. He thinks it is the right of `the people' to
have such a government remain in power, regardless of what it does to
those who oppose it. If enough of `the people' oppose the government,
then, one way or another, they will eventually remove it themselves,
but until that happens, or if those who are unhappy with it are too
weak or too few to effect a change, then their only option is to
comply or emigrate.

What's more, it seems that Frank agrees that it is legitimate to remove
oppressive governments, but only if they happen to be in your own
country. So it would be OK for a group of Iraqis to organise and
oust Saddam Hussein (it doesn't seem to matter to Frank how big this
group is, or what proportion of the country's population agree with it),
but if the members of this group are not themselves Iraqis their
enterprise suddenly becomes wrong. Nor is any other government allowed
to help them - they must succeed or fail (and be slaughtered) all on
their own, and if they accept help from outside then they are `puppets'
and illegitimate.

I wonder, then, whether Frank thinks it was OK for France to support
the American rebels who formed the USA, and if so why. Perhaps they
should have rejected such support, and told Lafayette and Steubens
to go home, because they were interfering with the `self-determination'
of the colonists.

--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: self-determination
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:36:36 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings Zev!

Zev Sero wrote to everyone...

> I wonder, then, whether Frank thinks it was OK for France to support
> the American rebels who formed the USA, and if so why. Perhaps they
> should have rejected such support, and told Lafayette and Steubens
> to go home, because they were interfering with the `self-determination'
> of the colonists.

Nice try Zev! The American patriots were natural allies with France,
and both the Patriots and France were at war with Great Britain,
albeit for very different reasons. Had France NOT been at war with
Britain at the time, it is highly unlikely they would have fought the
British on American soil. In other words, it was a mutual alliance
against a common enemy, in which both parties were at war.

It was also to France's consternation that the new US government did
not continue its alliance with France after the American revolution
had been won, nor did the new US government remain committed to
France's war with Britain any further after victory over Britain.

In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that France would have
come to the aid of the American patriots had they not already been in
a long drawn out war with Britain, but there is historical evidence
that the founders of the American republic had no intention of
continuing such an alliance after the objective of victory over
British occupation ended.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: self-determination
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 16:18:22 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote to everyone...

>> I wonder, then, whether Frank thinks it was OK for France to support
>> the American rebels who formed the USA, and if so why. Perhaps they
>> should have rejected such support, and told Lafayette and Steubens
>> to go home, because they were interfering with the `self-determination'
>> of the colonists.

> Nice try Zev! The American patriots were natural allies with France,
> and both the Patriots and France were at war with Great Britain,
> albeit for very different reasons. Had France NOT been at war with
> Britain at the time, it is highly unlikely they would have fought the
> British on American soil.

Of course they wouldn't. What's that got to do with the question.
The question isn't *why* they did it, but whether they had the *right*
to do so. According to your vision of `self-determination', at least
as far as I can discern it, it would appear that by intervening on the
side of the rebels they were interfering with the `self-determination'
of the colonists, and preventing an authentic manifestation of `the
will of the people' (which you seem to think emerges from the success
or failure of military action, but only without outside interference).

Nor does anyone claim that the USAn invasion of Afghanistan, or the
possibly-coming invasion of Iraq, was/is motivated by concern for
the oppressed people of those countries. That it is to their benefit
is a very positive side-effect, and certainly provides additional moral
justification, but the primary *purpose* for USAn action (i.e. what's
in it for us) is to protect and advance its own legitimate interests.

Just to reiterate: there are (at least) four separate considerations
when a state contemplates military action: 1. is it in our interest?
2. is it prudent? 3. does it conform with international law? and
4. is it morally right? Each of these questions needs to be addressed
separately. You seem to be addressing #4 with your concept of `self-
determination'. The point you just raised now, though, relates to #1.

(Note: In the case of the USA, #3 is a little more complex, becausee
the USA has never seen `international law' as legally binding, but
rather as a set of customs that are worth keeping unless it's really
really important. So the question isn't simply "is it legal?" but
rather "is it `legal', and if not, is it worth doing anyway?".)

--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:37:03 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

I cribbed this off soc.history.what-if. On 2002-08-20
raharris1973@my-deja.com said:

>Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.what-if
>Who won the Cold War?
>What we know for sure is that the Soviet bloc collapsed, remarkably
>quickly, and remarkably peacefully.
>However, some people attribute this outcome to their own policies,
>first I'll name two who trumpet it the loudest:
>1) The Americans, especially American conservatives see themselves
>as the cause and libertarians see this as a vindication of their
>views.
>2) Al-Qaida, Osama Bin-Laden and the Mujhadeen movement. They
>fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, the the Soviets withdrew and
>collapsed.
>But here's some other candidates who might have just as plausible a
>claim-
>1) The German people, especially the East German people, who voted
>with their feet to end the system and who gave the Soviet collapse
>its most vivid images. Yay Germany, when you win a war, it happens
>to be the one where you're the good guy.
>2) The Polish people, for similar reasons.
>3) Saudi Oil Ministers- Their engineered price collapse in the 80s
>denied the Soviet Union easy revenue. Hey, maybe the indirect
>effects of low oil prices in the 80s mattered more than Mujhadeen
>activity on the ground. In Islamic terms this was a great success,
>leading to the creation of 6 Islamic nations out of the SU, and
>saving Afghanistan.
>4) China- for making reform within communism look possible and
>attractive.
>Thoughts?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 19:19:43 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

> I cribbed this off soc.history.what-if. On 2002-08-20
> raharris1973@my-deja.com said:
> >Newsgroups: soc.history,soc.history.what-if
> >Who won the Cold War?
> >What we know for sure is that the Soviet bloc collapsed, remarkably
> >quickly, and remarkably peacefully.
> >However, some people attribute this outcome to their own policies,
> >first I'll name two who trumpet it the loudest:

Yea, what's the purpose of this? Seems to vindicate even mine, and
the Libertarian Party's point of view against initiating force, since
the Soviet empire collapsed anyway regardless of the billions of
dollars, and loss of American lives in such places as Vietnam!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 11:13:21 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank asked:

>Robert Goodman wrote to everyone...

>> I cribbed this off soc.history.what-if. On 2002-08-20

>Yea, what's the purpose of this?

The subject had been discussed here recently, and I saw it raised elsewhere,
so I thought I'd show people here what was being said elsewhere. I do that
a lot.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:27:58 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Robert!

Robert Goodman wrote to Frank Reichert...

> >Yea, what's the purpose of this?

Interesting that you conveniently left out everything else I wrote in
that paragraph. Why? Because I believe it vindicated a point I have
been making, and you chose not to make that a part of this issue?

> The subject had been discussed here recently, and I saw it raised
elsewhere,
> so I thought I'd show people here what was being said elsewhere. I do
that
> a lot.

I've noticed that. BUT...

Yea, I raised a few brief points as well, and you chose to block them
from discussion. I suppose I can go back and resurrect them and
republish them as such; but I wonder why your preference for brevity
seems to be so one-sided.

If what I said wasn't important, I wouldn't have originally written
them.

I've noticed recently I've given you a lot of courtesy, in usually
posting profusely what you write in your own defence. I would expect
the same degree of courtesy in responding to legitimate questions when
they concern specific points being called into question. Momentarily
ago, I just looked over what *I really wrote*, and what you chose to
respond to. Conveniently, you left just about everything of any
significance out. Do you want me to pursue this... I can.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Who Won the Cold War? (OT for SHWI)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:49:29 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank wrote in part:

>Yea, I raised a few brief points as well, and you chose to block
>them from discussion. I suppose I can go back and resurrect them
>and republish them as such; but I wonder why your preference for
>brevity seems to be so one-sided.

>If what I said wasn't important, I wouldn't have originally written
>them.

>I've noticed recently I've given you a lot of courtesy, in usually
>posting profusely what you write in your own defence. I would
>expect the same degree of courtesy in responding to legitimate
>questions when they concern specific points being called into
>question.

I just wasn't interested in discussing that subject any more. I saw this
Usenet post, read it, and said, oh good, Frank'll like that, so I forwarded
it. That doesn't mean I wanted to discuss it. You say you're giving me a
lot of courtesy, I thought I was doing it out of courtesy to you.

I don't forward things because I agree with them. I forward them because I
think someone'll get a kick out of them, regardless of my opinion.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 04:39:20 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: "Libertarian Newsgroups Northwest" <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank:

You have mentioned something of interest here, on the point of the
Vietnamese refusing to "accept" or partake in their "inalienable" rights to
self determititive life, liberty and property.
I have heard various posters to this group say that the rights of "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", freedom of speech & religion, etc,
are inalienable, inherent, innate, and essentially guaranteed by Nature or
God to all human beings.
They have argued to me that even in lands as Iraq, China and Sudan, the
populace actually retains these "inalienable" rights, its just that the
governments they live under prevent the exercise of those "inalienable"
rights, i.e. they have 'em, they just can't use them.

I have argued there ain't no such thing; that personal, human rights are
hard fought and hard won pockets of liberty that we are quite privileged to
demand and be entitled to as a legal right within a given society.
To clarify, within a society that declares these rights entitled to its
citizens, they are for all intents and purposes actual guaranteed rights.
But it is only by virtue of the collective love of liberty and freedom
within the society we live in that we can expect to enjoy these rights, and
they are a rare and fragile thing in the cold world.

Now here seems to be an interesting example that breaks the hypothesis that
the inalienable righters put forth.
What if you have a population that actually enjoys and is satisfied with an
authoritarian government? A society where the government tells everyone what
religion they must practice, what things they may/may not speak or think,
how they live there personal lives, etc.
And yet, all the people living there actually have no complaints, and think
its just the best way to live; and such opinion is honest and uncoerced.
I would ask the "pro inalienable righters", do these people still retain
those so called rights anyway? Even if they don't want them, and eschew
others trying to push them onto them?
I would say, under threat of being in ad absurdium, absolutely not. And if
they do not have these rights, why then such rights cannot obviously be
inalienable at all. QED.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Reichert" <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.

> Greetings again Gary!
>
> Gary Triest wrote to Sev Sero...
>
> > I believe that in a sovereignty, particularly one that I am going to
live
> > in, Libertarian values and concurrent laws are supreme.
> > However, without such a society I do not believe that another
sovereignty
> > has a legal right to tell another one what to do. I say this with the
> > fearful observance of the principle of reciprocity. i.e. what you
consider
> > to be acceptable or moral in your society, another society may not
consider
> > so. Does that mean that any government should have the legal right to
take
> > action in another country to enact the way it thinks should be done? It
goes
> > both ways, and if you don't want Iraq to dictate how we should live
here,
> > then you can not expect to do the same to them.
> > That is under the assumption of a legal right.
>
> You have just raised some interesting and serious matters that ought
> to have a lot to do with the way all nations deal with each other.
>
> For starters, I've listened carefully to the arguments of Zev and
> Robert, particularly regarding the rightful use of force. Both seem to
> assume that it is perfectly okay for any nation to initiate force
> against another one, if in fact the end result is a greater liberty in
> the nation than the government that preceded it. Both gentlemen seem
> to assume three things:
>
> 1. That the people in such a target country REALLY want such liberty
> and freedom, and are willing to support it once it is forced upon
> them.
>
> 2. That liberty, as a principle, can be a "forced solution",
> vis-a-vis, forcing a country, culture and society to accept that
> liberty is better than the previous status quo simply because the
> "powers that make it a reality" justify it as a superior position.
> And,
>
> 3. That external force will change the hearts and minds of a target
> population, and thereby become self perpetuating.
>
> Now, although many who love and cherish liberty, may be zealous and
> unrelenting in making it a global reality, we do have to ask ourselves
> if this really ever works as a practical means.
>
> Three decades ago, we tried to force our morality and visions of
> democracy and liberty upon South Vietnam. Not only did we get booted
> out, but the South Vietnamese refused to fight or support their
> inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. Although the US
> government committed hundreds of thousands of mercenary forces to
> install a government more friendly to our values, along with billions
> of dollars in military aid, liberty regressed tremendously with the
> overthrow of the South Vietnamese puppet regime installed by the US
> government.
>
> It can now be rightfully argued, that subsequent to all of this, the
> current Vietnamese regime has far more liberty, and a growing private
> sector economic base that South Vietnam enjoyed when it was being
> forced upon them by the US government. What Goodman and Sero fail to
> recognize is that "liberty" is not something that can be achieved
> through the use of force! The Libertarian Party understands this
> quite well, as I do. For many however, their love for "liberty" means
> that by God everyone will enjoy liberty whether they like it or not,
> or else!
>
> I've noted that Robert, in particular, seems to relish the notion that
> he is a pragmatist. However, historically, in practical terms, any
> attempts to force "liberty" through the use of external power has
> usually failed dismally, only to resurrect itself on its own accord,
> later. Another great example is the demise of the former Soviet
> Union, and the Eastern European block formerly under a strong
> communist fraternity. We spent billions to arm ourselves, and
> countless billions to destabilize the Soviet socialist structure.
> Eventually, individual countries spawned their own leaders, such as
> Gorbechev, Yeltsen and finally Putin to radically change social,
> political and economic structures because the old ideas failed
> miserably!
>
> Liberty sells best when it is the "home grown" variety, and is not
> being forced upon a target population through external aggression and
> force! Even the face of Communist China is changing rapidly, and has
> nothing at all to do with US military force! Yea, we tried that too,
> and it also failed. North Korea will also eventually succumb to end
> tyranny and bring about economic and social change in the direction of
> private property, civil liberties, and a change of the old guard with
> a new one, hopefully one much better than the present, and probably
> with a unification with South Korea.
>
> One of the things I have been trying to hammer home to everyone is
> that US foreign policy has been a dismal failure. Most of the changes
> I am talking about right now have very little to do with any of the
> military adventurisms of five decades of a badly failed foreign
> policy. With the Shrub Regime's<tm> current fetish for attacking Iraq
> may finally make US foreign policy finally irrelevant, since virtually
> no one supports such military belligerency anymore! Current estimates
> are that the US will spend about $80 billion, paid by US taxpayers, to
> topple Hussein, and that presupposes that such actions will even be
> tolerated by international consensus!
>
> Not only will such actions further bankrupt an already bankrupt US
> Treasury, it will isolate the US as a rogue state, using the same
> principles that we claim to despise by those we detest so much. It
> will also go much further to creating division between the islamic
> world and the United States, and anyone else who dares to support such
> wanton aggression, inviting further terrorist attacks and setting
> liberty back ever further. The only bright spot on the horizon may be
> the beginning of the end of US imperialism.
>
> If true peace and liberty will come out of any of this, it will likely
> be in the form of a Ghandi style non-violent resistance to US
> aggression. We have the monumental military power, but in the face of
> it all, it may become the satire of the entire 21st century, that
> military power is evil when it is used in such a way to force people
> to change their values, beliefs, and ideals. And right now we are
> dealing with real cultures, real people, who believe very different
> than we do. All of the military might on earth should not be
> permitted as morally acceptable to change the hearts and minds of such
> people who are very different from our own.
>
> The US government has stooped to the lowest level, the lowest common
> denominator of morality, in trying to use brute force for several
> decades to change the landscape of thinking, to force a change in
> life-style, morality, and even under the guise and garb of "liberty".
> When we stoop to such a level, we have lost all moral arguments for
> the conduct of our actions. And the whole planet is now watching
> everything that we do.
>
> For crying out loud, we can't even clean up our own stinking mess, our
> own immorality, and the conditions upon which we wage all such wars
> against human behaviour at home on our own turf! How absurd and
> ridiculous are our moral judgements on the rest of the planet! We
> have become only a nation with no moral soul -- we have long sold
> ourselves out to the notion of a omnipotent "government". All I am
> saying here is that we ourselves, have no idea of what real liberty is
> all about, yet we choose to impose our inane values on the rest of the
> plant by brute force!
>
> In time, the piper will be paid in due course.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: jurisdiction - liberty and the state.
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 02:26:45 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Rights are inalienable--even if people choose to live as if they have
"alienated" their rights. Suppose all the people in a society actually
enjoy and are satisfied with an authoritarian government and have no
complaints about keeping its rules. That would mean that no one would be
put in jail, or murdered by the police, or fined or punished in any other
way for breaking the rules of the society because, after all, everyone
enjoys and is satisfied with the laws. Or we could go one step
further. Occasionally someone will "step out of line" and will be
genuinely happy when they are caught and corrected. Still, no ones rights
have been violated. Now, when the first person sticks up and says "Hey,
waitaminit! I have an inalienable right to ..." and they get punished for
saying it (or for doing whatever it is), then the society is no longer the
one postulated above. In other words, not *all* the people "have no
complaints about keeping" the rules of the authoritarian society. And at
that point, the society (or the government of that society) is guilty of
violating someone's rights.

And that's the breaking point of this argument about "the people of nation
X actually *want* to live under tyrant Y and so therefore we have no
'right' to impose 'liberty' on them." Look, if every American female
decided to wear a burka in public for religious reasons, then they are free
to do so. If every American female decided *not* to wear a burka in
public, they could do that as well (at least as far as the law is
concerned, some of them might run into trouble with their "religious"
husbands). It's ridiculous to say that because every woman in Afghanistan
under the Taliban was wearing a burka "because they wanted to" meant that
it was ok for the men to beat the "violators".

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

Gary Triest wrote, in part:
>Frank:
>
>Now here seems to be an interesting example that breaks the hypothesis that
>the inalienable righters put forth.
>What if you have a population that actually enjoys and is satisfied with an
>authoritarian government? A society where the government tells everyone
what
>religion they must practice, what things they may/may not speak or think,
>how they live there personal lives, etc.
>And yet, all the people living there actually have no complaints, and think
>its just the best way to live; and such opinion is honest and uncoerced.
>I would ask the "pro inalienable righters", do these people still retain
>those so called rights anyway? Even if they don't want them, and eschew
>others trying to push them onto them?
>I would say, under threat of being in ad absurdium, absolutely not. And if
>they do not have these rights, why then such rights cannot obviously be
>inalienable at all. QED.

Hardly QED. Your argument rests on the assumption that everyone in the
population is in favor of the government's actions. That's an invalid
assumption whether you are talking about the USA LP (or any USA party, for
that matter) or people in Afghanistan or a tribe of "primitives" in the
jungle.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: the new "Declaration of Dependence"
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 12:33:34 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

By Executive Order from the President of the United States:

The Declaration of Dependence

Article I. Because the citizens are stupid and dysfunctional and
cannot manage their own lives the Government will now do so for you.
The Constitution is now suspended.

Article II. All guns, baseball bats, big sticks, numchucks, and
slingshots must now be turned in, within seven (7) working days at
your nearest Center to Enforce Compliance which is located at your
police station.

ArticleIII. Cigarette smoking is now an act of terrorism that will be
prosecuted in the United Nations World Court, and punishable by
public stoning or beheading.

Article IV. Your issue (sic: "children") are now property of the
State. You have seven (7) working days to turn them into the nearest
VI Lenin State Orphanage operated by the Ministry of Life Micro-
Management. Report to the de-lousing chamber to make the transfer.

Article V. All private property is now property of the State. You may
lease back your home, car, furniture, and clothing from the State for
an amount that will be calculated to be 438% of your current income.

Article VI. All citizens must maintain compulsory insurance on all
property that they do not own and which they lease back from the
State, including clothing.

Article VII. There will be NO SMOKING/ NO PETS in any residence.
Officers of Compliance will conduct random spot checks and
surveillance. Violators will be transferred to the nearest WHO
internment camp for enforced "retraining." A sum equal to 742% of
your income will be appropriated to re-inburse the Gov't for the "re-
training" that you didn't want in the first place.

Article VIII. The Courts are now closed to the people. The Courts are
for the sole use of the Gov't to prosecute the citizens for non-
compliance issues.

Article IX. All citizens will serve 10 hours each week of MANDATORY
shopping time at Walmart and spend no less than 113% of their weekly
income to nurture and reinforce government mandated addictive
consumerism.

Article XI. Independent thinking is now a felony punishable by a
completely arbitrarily determined prison sentence.

Article XII. All citizens must report for State imposed counselling,
and will work vigilantly, in full cooperation, to: 1-discover why
they are human, and 2- to vigilantly monitor any lapses of
appropriate attitude and gratefullness to the Gov't.

Article XIII. All people (outside of the Gov't) are now equal. To be
fair to all, we will equalize to the lowest common denominator.

Article XIV. Opposite sex co-habitation or marriage are now felony
offenses that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in
the United Nations World Court.

Article XV. Any works of, or references to the deposed Constitution,
Delaration of Independence, Bill of "Rights" (snigger..), American
history as not written by John Dewey, the subversives Ward and June
Cleaver, Ozzie And Harriet Nelson, and Norman
Rockwell, or Mayberry are now declared articles of subversion and
allusions to such will be a felony act of treason. ( ...and you
KNOW...where you will go...)

Article XVI. All citizens must report for sexuality indoctrination.

Article XVII. Members of the Gov't, the Legislatures, the Office of
Dependence Enforcement, Ministry of Life Micro-Managemnet will be
excempt from these laws.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: LP RELEASE: Defeat of Rep. Bob Barr
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 11:56:31 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: August 21, 2002
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Press Secretary
Phone: (202) 333-0008 Ext. 222
E-Mail: pressreleases@hq.LP.org
===============================

LP's medical marijuana ads play role
in defeat of U.S. Rep. Bob Barr

WASHINGTON, DC -- The "worst drug warrior in Congress" has lost his
seat, and the Libertarian Party appears to have played a small role in
making it happen.

U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, a four-term incumbent, lost the Republican primary
in Georgia's 7th District on Tuesday night to fellow Republican John
Linder, 67 percent to 33 percent.

Over the past two weeks, Barr's Libertarian opponent, Carole Ann Rand,
flooded Georgia's 7th District with more than 4,000 TV spots. The ads
feature a multiple sclerosis victim who lashes out against the
Congressman for his crusade against medical marijuana.

"Barr's defeat is a victory for every American who believes that
doctors and patients – rather than politicians – should be making
medical decisions," said Rand. "Like Babe Ruth pointing to a spot in
the bleachers before he hit that home run, we pointed out our target
and knocked him right out of Congress."

The party's political director, Ron Crickenberger, acknowledged that
many factors contributed to Barr's defeat.

"Actually, it's impossible to gauge the precise effect that this or
any other ad had on the outcome," he said. "Nevertheless, there are a
number of reasons to believe that our ad had an impact.

"For one thing, our ad was virtually the only issue-based TV spot in
the campaign, so it became a lightning rod for publicity. Both Barr
and
Linder ran personality-based, feel-good ads. Linder's main ad simply
described how he met his wife, which was designed to leave voters with
a warm, fuzzy feeling. And Barr's TV spot came to be called the 'Barr
is gooder' ad. It portrayed a good 'ol boy saying, 'Linder is good.
But
I'm going to vote for Barr, because he's gooder.'

"That left us a huge opportunity to inject our issue into the public
debate – and we did."

For another thing, media interest was piqued by the dramatic ads,
Crickenberger said.

"Political reporters for every major paper in the district, including
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, wrote about the ad's expected
impact," he said. "In addition, local talk radio hosts turned it into
a topic for discussion, and Atlanta-based, syndicated radio host Neal
Boortz really beat Barr up over the medical marijuana issue.

"So while Barr's loss was attributable to many factors, I believe
these ads put another nail into his political coffin."

The 30-second ad opens with a shot of multiple sclerosis sufferer
Cheryl Miller lying on a stretcher as an announcer asks: "Why does Bob
Barr want this woman in jail?" Miller introduces herself as a medical
marijuana user and says, "Bob Barr thinks I should be in jail for
using my medicine. Why would you do that to me, Bob?"

The ad concludes: "When the Drug War turns on our own sick and dying,
it's gone too far -- and so has Bob Barr."

The 30-second ads ran in Barr's district on two broadcast networks –
Fox and NBC – as well as on CNN, TNT, Comedy Central, MS/NBC, and
dozens of other cable networks.

Produced by the national Libertarian Party, the ads are part of its
goal of defeating the worst drug warriors in Congress, whether
Republican or Democrat. Other targets for defeat include U.S. Rep.
Henry Bonilla, R-TX; Sen. Max Cleland, D-GA; Senator Tim Hutchison, R-
AR; and Senator Max Baucus, D-MT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Libertarian Party
http://www.lp.org/
2600 Virginia Ave. NW, Suite 100 voice:
202-333-0008
Washington DC 20037 fax:
202-333-0072
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For subscription changes, please use the WWW form at:
http://www.lp.org/action/email.html

Addresses & Links for the Liberty Talk discussion conference:

To send messages to the list: liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com
To Subscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To Unsubscribe: mailto:liberty_talk-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To contact Moderator: mailto:moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: http://www.liberty-northwest.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Repeal USA PATRIOT ACT
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:19:14 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings everyone!

This was recently posted on the Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference,
and I encourage you to pass it on to others, or appropriate to other
lists in which you participate.

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [idaho_libs] FW: Repeal USA PATRIOT ACT
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:24:33 -0700
From: "David T. Terry" <davidt@onlinemac.com>
Reply-To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
To: "Idaho_ libs" <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

> Let's get behind this.
>
> ----------
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> I have just read and signed the online petition:
>
> "Immediate and Total Repeal of the USA/Patriot ACT"
>
> hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
> service, at:
>
> http://www.PetitionOnline.com/sabene/
>
> I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you
might
> agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and
consider
> signing yourself.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Fran Tully

Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: www.liberty-northwest.org
Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: www.lp-idaho.org

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE: Big Brother- this is amazing
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:04:09 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com, liberty_talk@yahoogroups.com

Greetings again everyone!

Everyone check this baby out!

Kindest regards,
Frank

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [idaho_libs] RE:Big Brother- this is amazing
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 21:19:55 -0600
From: "Ben F. Irvin" <birvin@allidaho.com>
Reply-To: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
To: <birvin@allidaho.com>

I found a copy of my drivers license on this web site,
they have a copy of every driver license in the USA in
their database.

http://www.DriversLicenseSearch.net

Ben

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
fspcrackerbarrel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
[Image]

Idaho Libertarian Activist Conference addresses and sites:
Post message: idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: idaho_libs-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Unsubscribe: idaho_libs-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
List owner: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
Web: www.liberty-northwest.org
Libertarian Party of Idaho Web link: www.lp-idaho.org

Shortcut URL to this page:
http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/idaho_libs

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Darklady Online & on Cable TV! (Forward From robgood@bestweb.net)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 01:07:35 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>,
"Darklady" <darklady@darklady.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
<Undisclosed-Recipient:;@bestweb.net>

Darklady Online & on Cable TV!
Exercise your First Amendment rights by joining in!

First, join gonzo sex writer Darklady & Adult Buzz (www.AdultBuzz.com)
editor-in-chief Kath Blackwell as we co-host the 110th session of Script
School! Script School is the 2nd longest running adult webmaster oriented
radio show on the web.

Hang out in the chat room or call in your questions on the topic "Women on
the Internet." Among our guests will be Anne of www.Annescams.com and
www.AnneLovesGreenGuy.com.

http://www.scriptschool.com/radio/
Friday, August 23rd
2:00 pm - 4:00 pm (PST)

Then, if you're in the Portland, Oregon/Vancouver, WA area watch Libertarian
candidate for Oregon's District 42 House of Representatives seat Darklady as
she and other third party political candidates discuss important political
issues and answer your call-in questions about the upcoming November 5th
election.

Sunday, August 25th
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm (PST)
Harry Lime Show (www.HarryLimeTV.com)
Cable Channel 11 in the Portland/Vancouver area
Repeats on Channel 21
Wednesday, August 28 at 11:00 pm
Friday, August 30 at 11:30 pm

Want to be in the studio audience?
http://www.mctv.org/map-f.html

==========================
Theresa A. Reed
Libertarian Candidate
Oregon House of Representatives
District 42
http://www.darklady.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dark-Lady
"Friends of Darklady" [Theresa A. Reed for House of Rep. Dist. 42]
Party HQ: 12602 SW Farmington Rd., Beaverton, OR 97005


ryLimeTV.com)
Cable Channel 11 in the Portland/Vancouver area
Repeats on Channel 21
Wednesday, August 28 at 11:00 pm
Friday, August 30 at 11:30 pm

Want to be in the studio audience?
http://www.mctv.org/map-f.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Update: the cold war dialogue...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 00:39:13 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Here's my exact statement based upon a reply to Robert Goodman.
Apparently he didn't want to deal with the rest of the story, or its
conclusions.

I wrote:

QUOTE...
Yea, what's the purpose of this? Seems to vindicate even mine, and
the Libertarian Party's point of view against initiating force, since
the Soviet empire collapsed anyway regardless of the billions of
dollars, and loss of American lives in such places as Vietnam!

UNQUOTE.

Seems to indicate to me Robert's selective propensity for one-liners.
Choosing and selecting sound bites of what he can respond to, without
dealing with realities and conclusions. What he managed to respond to
was only FIVE WORDS, namely: "Yea, what's the purpose of this?" Take
a gander at the whole sentence and how it fits. In short, he didn't
really respond at all to the real question I posed at all. Nice!

So, both the Libertarian Party, and my view are reduced to five small
words, actually four small words, "What's the purpose of this?"
That's it folks. That's the entire gist of Robert's argument. You
decide if he may have perhaps left something else of importance out, a
lot of stuff really.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Practically speaking...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 01:11:50 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Robert!

Why should I support you? Think about this for a while. Why should I
support YOUR choices? Why do I care? After all, you don't recognize
any rights common to mankind as being inalienable rights, rights
recorded in history as being inviolatiable? You just have to consider
what this really means. That means, if YOU really believe you have a
right to violate the rights of others, then that is your personal
choice. You violate that choice each and every time you preach
against self-determination of people to make such choices.

Do your choices support my choices for myself? If this is really all
about choices becoming a product of individual FREEDOM, then it seems
to me you have a lot to contribute to make that position clear and
definitive, rather than in one-liners, as you've chosen to do. Is
there any way that you can scientifically talk about "rights" in a
sense of common, understood, historical and documented evidence that
such is self-evident in nature itself, particularly human nature?

Well, if you can't do that, then it follows, you'll lose. I don't
care about YOUR freedom, your right to make choices. I'll kill you if
I want to, and if I have to opportunity as such. That's what it comes
down to actually. All this says is that YOUR rights mean nothing,
only to yourself. You have no recognized government who will defend
or support you. And, in any case, you refuse to accept that a
government ought to have such power to support you.

In essence you say there is no ultimate freedom. There is no liberty.
There are no inalienable rights of man. Fine, then you have no rights
either, and I will NEVER support your right to be free. I am
concerned mainly about my own "rights". No government at all, just
pure and absolute power to protect my own rights, or at least rights
that I have the personal power to protect. I DON'T care about YOU!
Why should I care about what YOU believe are your rights? I could
care less about your rights.

Isn't there a way that you can concede that individuals cannot be free
without a government, without a contract, without a definition of some
order that defines such rights?

I know, I coming from the edge. I am also trying to make a point.
What is "rights"? If rights are only the figment of one's own mind,
then it will certainly be a matter of assault by anyone wishing to
take such rights away.

Robert, I honestly don't have any idea what I can do with you. All I
can say is that government is necessary to protect recognized and
fundamentally accepted rights. Anything less than that is really
anarchy. I can't and won't deal with that as even a remote
possibility. It doesn't and won't work.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Practically speaking...
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 12:49:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank asked:

>Why should I support you?

Because you agree with my ideas.

>Think about this for a while. Why
>should I support YOUR choices? Why do I care? After all, you don't
>recognize any rights common to mankind as being inalienable rights,

Sure, but you do. You do what you believe in.

>Do your choices support my choices for myself?

Mine do, yeah.

>Is there any way that you can scientifically talk about
>"rights" in a sense of common, understood, historical and
>documented evidence that such is self-evident in nature itself,
>particularly human nature?

No.

>Well, if you can't do that, then it follows, you'll lose. I don't
>care about YOUR freedom, your right to make choices. I'll kill you
>if I want to,

But you don't.

>I DON'T
>care about YOU! Why should I care about what YOU believe are your
>rights?

It's obvious that you do, or you wouldn't be writing about it.

>I could care less about your rights.
>Isn't there a way that you can concede that individuals cannot be
>free without a government, without a contract, without a definition
>of some order that defines such rights?

In general, people cannot "be" free WITH OR WITHOUT the things you say.
Freedom is always a matter of the moment. No freedom is perpetual. Then
it's just a matter of considering under what conditions one is most likely
to be free. People have been exploring that question for a long time.
Government can do some good things. It's nice to figure out how it can best
serve freedom, just as how any thing can be made useful. I think it's a
good thing to make a legal system involving rights. It's just that I don't
pretend those rights are anything more than a useful invention, rather than
a discovery of something that already existed somehow in Platonic space.

In Your Sly Tribe,
Robert

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: philosophical anarchism.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 03:52:44 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Frank

on 8/22/02 10:11 AM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> Hello Robert!

frank, you shoulda wrote hello, larry , too.

i'm way behind on my email. i was lucky enough to meet a woman.

Frank, lots of us libs are philosophical anarchists.

good gawd, frank, you are so self-righteous when is comes to your perceived
need for government. i figure that tells me, lib or not, you need a leader.

no leaders, frank. not even you.

LF

check out anti-state.com frank. ain't fair for you to treat us lib
anarchists like we don't have the slightest of brain cells.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: philosophical anarchism.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 21:08:42 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> Frank, lots of us libs are philosophical anarchists.

I have no idea what percentage actually fall into that category. I
don't have any love for government either, as you already know very
well. Government isn't an entity you love, but rather an entity that
needs to have very clearly defined and specific powers.

> good gawd, frank, you are so self-righteous when is comes to your
perceived
> need for government. i figure that tells me, lib or not, you need a
leader.

Okay, here's my point. I would LOVE to be able to sustain a reason to
desolve government entirely, that is, if that is it would have the
objective of promoting liberty. Unfortunately, in most cases at
least, I am firmly convinced that the complete absence of government
would result in decreasing liberty for most people at the expense of
those who have tremendous wealth and power to enjoy their own
liberty. Here is why I take this position:

1. Human nature. It is human nature for individuals with power to
have even more power over you. There are such qualities in the human
race that wants to take away whatever you have by force (sometimes
lethal force), control you for their own purposes, steal from you,
rape your wife or daughter, and maybe in some cases just fuck with you
because they don't like you.

I know for damn sure I do not have the economic power to defend my
liberty over myself, my family or private property against such
powerful forces displayed in a society in the total absence of
government. Neither do I have the economic capacity to hire private
security guards to protect my liberty and stand around doing so
24-hours each day waiting for the moment someone might want to fuck
with me, seize my property, rape my daughter. Get the point?

2. I have better uses for my time than to spend 24-hours each day
toting a gun, lurking around outside my house, waiting for some
asshole to show up and attack me or my family. There would be very
little productive times in such a society because when I could lay my
gun down, and actually do anything productive, I might be exposing
myself to some economically giant warlord who would send his thugs to
my house to do his bidding to kill me, steal from me, extort me with
"protection" schemes and so forth. Productive and free society that
you might envision, simply would last very long.

3. For many, many years Larry, I've read the Libertarian lists. I've
listened to just about all of the arguments for philosophical
anarchism, and still I am not convinced that *I* would enjoy freedom,
nor would I have a way to really defend myself against thugs and
beasts who wish to take my liberty away, including of course my
property or any other assets that would then be open season for such
beasts to plunder. Kind of like today's government, but even this
isn't as bad as NO government at all.

Okay, here's the point in case you missed it. I don't want to spend
24-hours of each day, 365 days out of each year, just worrying about
the prospect of defending myself. I've got better things to do with
my time. Since I don't have the resources to employ the badest brute
on the block to defend my liberty, then I would be forced to spend
such time defending myself in the absence of hiring a government to do
so. I've heard the argument, and I'm sure if I don't mention it here,
"We'll, just form private associations with neighbours or others to
defend yourself." Okay, let's say that might be a logical (although
typically "warlord" type of necessity) alternative. But is it an
alternative? What I mean is, okay, let's say I join along with all of
my neighbours to hire a private security organization to defend myself
along with a small community of neighbours.

Larry, how is that really different from government? Isn't that
technically what government is supposed to be? Another question, does
such an association become a government, since all of the neighbours
would have to vote, or agree upon what that private security force
should do, and any limitations on power that it might have. Let's say
another group of neighbours, across the river, or in another block
also form such an association. But this one has aggressive
intentions, and has the economic resources to hire a very aggressive
private security apparatus that is capable of wiping you and your
neighbours out in a heartbeat. Let's assume here that they will
simply show up, unannounced, and kill off your security force, and
rape, maim, steal and loot all of your property, taking your daughters
as booty. What you are talking about here is a "warlord" or tribal
mentality. In essence you still have governments around, you just
call them private arrangements, but these arrangements will become
always critical of the whims and desires of each individual forming
such an association. Again, in all practical ways, this would be
similar to a tribal government, such as has existed prior to the rise
of more advanced civilizations.

And, who's going to pay for these security services? Let's say 90
percent of this "private association", or government vote to levy each
family $5,000 a year to pay for such protection. What if the 10
percent feel they are getting raped and don't want to go along with
it, yet they need such protection since they don't have the economic
resources to cover their ass if they pull out of the association. So
some kind of monetary policy would have to be a part of any such
agreement, which amounts to majority rule, or taxation! Surprise!
Surprise!

So far here, I've only been talking about protecting your interests,
property and family. What is your "association" of neighbours going
to do when you get a blizzard, I mean six feet of snow in three days,
and covering about two miles of private road just to get to your front
door. Don't laugh, that actually happened to me in 1996 in north
Idaho. You see, I live on Ruby Ridge, about two thirds of that
distance (2 miles) is on a county road, the rest is private. During
that one winter, it continued to snow, from November 15, through
around April.

The reason I am bringing this up is because it is very similar to a
larger "free association" that total anarchy would bring. The one
third of private road leading to MY front door was private road, and
all on private property. Yea, one or two neighbours deciding to kick
in and pay for a private contractor to bring in a bulldozer for six
months and keep the road clear. Other neighbours did NOT want to kick
in their share, and never did. But since the private portion of the
road was always on private land that covered their own, they got a
free ride. We paid for the road maintenance, and they enjoyed jumping
in the rig and driving into town.

What if you extrapolate that out even further, lets say to an entire
county, with private roads then becoming something along the lines of
not 2 miles, but likely 2,000 miles? Let's then assume that 10-15
percent of such would want to kick in the bucks to keep the roads
open. What about the other 85 percent that opted out, yet enjoyed
open and clear roads anyway?

Human nature is also a part of this too. It's called greed. They want
the benefits, but don't want to contribute their fair share. How
would you force them to pay their fair share? Now you are talking
about the use of force aren't you? How would that be very much
different from government levying taxes to do the same thing?

Here's the problem with the private road scheme. In an anarchy, all
roads would be private, and at the same time cross a lot of private
properties depending upon the length of the road or highway. There
would obviously be no government at all, with even limited powers to
maintain the road. And in an anarchy, there would be dozens of
private associations and groups formed to deal with keeping the roads
open and clear of snow. Paved, patched, maintained, graded, and some
degree of safety enforcement. No civilization could ever progress
very far under such conditions, it's a lot like the security problem I
mentioned earlier.

There is no way, human nature as it is, that anarchy could ever
provide for liberty, security, or even bare essential services. As
I've stated my case above, you're not going to get any increase in
freedom -- rather, you're going to be living in stark horror over
which "other" association "war lord" might come in and take it all
away from you. Or, how you might drive to work the next morning
because another group of individuals decided the road isn't worth
maintaining any longer. At some point, yes (I know you don't like
this) a "government" would be formed to provide security, road
maintenance, and other services that are essential and necessary for
any civilization to survive.

> no leaders, frank. not even you.

I hope you understand, it isn't "leadership" I am talking about here.
It is necessary for a very limited and very strictly defined
government to exist. There would be absolutely no liberty at all in
the absence of government. Human nature isn't interested in liberty.
"Real Liberty" is not anything that the American people understand,
want, or will accept! We've gone down the shitter for too long to be
able to convince anyone to vote in our direction right now.

I saw a real neat website by an indian tribe selling tax-free
cigarettes. I'm going to post that separately here in a moment.
Because what I will be posting is in html format, I didn't want to
attach it here in this post, for those who can't read html. The
subject line will be Indian Cigarettes. I COULDN'T BELIEVE the price
of a taxed pack of cigarettes is really as high as it is today. After
all, I've been gone from the US for the last five years, and was only
back for about a month two years ago. I was flabbergasted at the
price for a carton of cigarettes, and the Indian Tribe had a "no tax"
discount price of around the price I remember on store shelves just
two years ago!

So, Larry. I disagree that anarchism could ever be made to work. At
some point, a limited government would have to be brought into the
equation for any civilization, and liberty, to exist at all. But this
current government has to go. Hopefully peacefully as in the case of
the Soviet collapse, but THIS government really has to go. I am
starting to re-think a lot of things, that is, about my desire to come
home, to my own house in Naples, Idaho, and try to survive under such
conditions of paying $40 or more for a carton of Winstons! This is
absolutely insane, just as is the Shrub Regime's<tm> 'war on terror'
and foreign policy totally insane. I was really pissed in reading the
Indian Tribe ad, and I can't fathom how any American could ever accept
such an atrocious government. Don't make me out as pro-government
Larry -- I hate government! It's just a necessary evil, and that's all
it is. Maybe, because in some sense, "human nature" is evil, and
that's why it's necessary, I don't know frankly.

I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that the American people
are brain dead and will NEVER stop defending this fucking government.
It's likely beyond anything any political party will ever be able to
put an end to.

> check out anti-state.com frank. ain't fair for you to treat us lib
> anarchists like we don't have the slightest of brain cells.

You do have minds, I won't disagree with that. I just cannot be
convinced that human nature will ever evolve into a state where
anarchy could possibly work. Look at the price of a pack of Winstons
the next time you walk into your friendly Safeway store. Compare that
with about 35 cents a pack here in the Philippines. And then, consider
that the difference between 35 cents a pack here, and the $4.00 a pack
in the US is all in government TAXES! That represents about a 1,000
percent markup, and all in TAXES! In America, who cares? Taxation at
1,000 percent!? That should certainly piss off somebody! Apparently
it has become perfectly acceptable. Maybe, I am so out of touch with
Amerika today, that I really shouldn't even consider coming back at
all. It may be already far too late for liberty to really ever again
become an open issue again in US politics.

If I don't come back, I feel your pain. It is my own.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: philosophical anarchism.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 14:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

> > good gawd, frank, you are so self-righteous when
> is comes to your perceived
> > need for government. i figure that tells me, lib
> or not, you need a leader.
>
> Okay, here's my point. I would LOVE to be able to
> sustain a reason to
> desolve government entirely, that is, if that is it
> would have the
> objective of promoting liberty. Unfortunately, in
> most cases at
> least, I am firmly convinced that the complete
> absence of government
> would result in decreasing liberty for most people
> at the expense of
> those who have tremendous wealth and power to enjoy
> their own
> liberty.

The situations you describe are quite horrible and I
certainly wouldn't want to live in them, even though
I'm an anarchist. But I think you're misunderstanding
what many of us anarchists mean by "no government."
Much of the problem comes from using the word
"government" since the word can be defined as law and
order. Most anarchists (at least of the libertarian
sort) don't want to get rid of government in the sense
of "law and order;" what they want to get rid of are
"States" - entities that are legally able to initiate
force.

Most of the evil that "governments" do, in my opinion,
results from the initial evil of their capacity to
tax. If you take the US government exactly as it is
right now and simply remove it's ability to tax, I
think you would have pretty well defanged the monster,
even if no actual "laws" and "regulations" were
changed. A "government" that has to receive all its
money through voluntary donations, the selling of
services, and user fees would meet my ideal of
"anarchism" - and I'm guessing that's probably not too
far from what you are in favor of.

> 1. Human nature. It is human nature for individuals
> with power to
> have even more power over you. There are such
> qualities in the human
> race that wants to take away whatever you have by
> force (sometimes
> lethal force), control you for their own purposes,
> steal from you,
> rape your wife or daughter, and maybe in some cases
> just fuck with you
> because they don't like you.

Yup, this is exactly true. And I think it is the
reason why no matter what system is in place, the
majority of people MUST value liberty and be vigilant
in protecting it for liberty to work. There is no
way, in my opinion, to guarantee that liberty will
prevail; indeed, the cards are stacked against it,
since there will always powerful (and not so powerful)
people who are trying to gain more power over everyone
else.

One of the best ways to prevent power hungry people
from being able to actually gain power is to make sure
there are no socially sanctioned institions that are
legally able to initiate force - specifically, that
there no institutions with the legal power to tax. I
think the US government is a prime example of why a
State with "clearly defined and specific powers"
cannot protect liberty for any length of time if it
ALSO has the power to tax. The Constitution did a
brilliant job of creating boundaries around the
government and dividing power so no one portion of the
government could have dictatorial control. And what
happened? Things started going wrong almost
immediately, within 150 years the republic was
destroyed, and a little over 200 years later we're
practically in a police state.

It doesn't matter how limited or specific a
"government's" powers are, so long as it is legally
able to initiate force power hungry people can use the
institution to gain power over other people.

> 2. I have better uses for my time than to spend
> 24-hours each day
> toting a gun, lurking around outside my house,
> waiting for some
> asshole to show up and attack me or my family.
> There would be very
> little productive times in such a society because
> when I could lay my
> gun down, and actually do anything productive, I
> might be exposing
> myself to some economically giant warlord who would
> send his thugs to
> my house to do his bidding to kill me, steal from
> me, extort me with
> "protection" schemes and so forth. Productive and
> free society that
> you might envision, simply would last very long.

Anarchism does not require throwing away the last
3,000 years of development in law and order. To have
"anarchism" (at least from my point of view) simply
requires taking away the "government's" ability to
tax. Leave the present court system and rules in
place; just take away the government's ability to
coerce people into funding and participating in them.

> "We'll, just form private associations with
> neighbours or others to
> defend yourself." Okay, let's say that might be a
> logical (although
> typically "warlord" type of necessity) alternative.
> But is it an
> alternative? What I mean is, okay, let's say I join
> along with all of
> my neighbours to hire a private security
> organization to defend myself
> along with a small community of neighbours.
>
> Larry, how is that really different from government?
> Isn't that
> technically what government is supposed to be?

A group of neighbors hiring a private security
organization to protect them would emphatically not be
a "government" (i.e. State), so long as the no one was
forced to fund the secuirty organization who didn't
want to.

And it's highly unlikely that such a neighborhood
security organization would be of the "warlord" sort,
since most private security organizations (at least as
they exist now in the US) are concerned with
PREVENTING rather than PROSECUTING crime.

> Another question, does
> such an association become a government, since all
> of the neighbours
> would have to vote, or agree upon what that private
> security force
> should do, and any limitations on power that it
> might have. Let's say
> another group of neighbours, across the river, or in
> another block
> also form such an association. But this one has
> aggressive
> intentions, and has the economic resources to hire a
> very aggressive
> private security apparatus that is capable of wiping
> you and your
> neighbours out in a heartbeat. Let's assume here
> that they will
> simply show up, unannounced, and kill off your
> security force, and
> rape, maim, steal and loot all of your property,
> taking your daughters
> as booty. What you are talking about here is a
> "warlord" or tribal
> mentality.

Yup, this is always a danger, no matter what system is
place. There will ALWAYS be people who want to use
force to gain power over other people. But, I think
the best way to prevent such scenerios from happening
is 1) to have the majority of people value liberty and
2) for people to be capable of defending themselves.

On the other hand, I don't think finding the biggest
and baddest warlord on block, and dressing him up with
fancy clothes and charming words, will effectively
prevent that warlord from initiating force against
other people. It may give the people under the
warlord's care some security for a while (even though
people outside the warlord's care may get squashed
during that time), but the warlord will always turn on
the people who created him. Is this not exactly the
situation going on the US at right now? Just because
the US government spouts lovely things about liberty
and freedom doesn't change the fact that underneath
it's still basically just a warlord tribe on a grand
scale.

> And, who's going to pay for these security services?
> Let's say 90
> percent of this "private association", or government
> vote to levy each
> family $5,000 a year to pay for such protection.
> What if the 10
> percent feel they are getting raped and don't want
> to go along with
> it, yet they need such protection since they don't
> have the economic
> resources to cover their ass if they pull out of the
> association. So
> some kind of monetary policy would have to be a part
> of any such
> agreement, which amounts to majority rule, or
> taxation! Surprise!
> Surprise!

If security was paid for privately it would operate
under the same free market principles that guide the
acquisition of any desired commodities. There would
be competing groups providing security and people
would pay for what they want.

There is no reason to assume that a private security
organization could tax people UNLESS it was a State
organization with the power to initiate force.

> So far here, I've only been talking about protecting
> your interests,
> property and family. What is your "association" of
> neighbours going
> to do when you get a blizzard, I mean six feet of
> snow in three days,
> and covering about two miles of private road just to
> get to your front
> door. Don't laugh, that actually happened to me in
> 1996 in north
> Idaho. You see, I live on Ruby Ridge, about two
> thirds of that
> distance (2 miles) is on a county road, the rest is
> private. During
> that one winter, it continued to snow, from November
> 15, through
> around April.
>
> The reason I am bringing this up is because it is
> very similar to a
> larger "free association" that total anarchy would
> bring. The one
> third of private road leading to MY front door was
> private road, and
all on private property. Yea, one or two neighbours
deciding to kick
in and pay for a private contractor to bring in a
bulldozer for six
months and keep the road clear. Other neighbours did
NOT want to kick
in their share, and never did. But since the private
portion of the
road was always on private land that covered their
own, they got a
free ride. We paid for the road maintenance, and they
enjoyed jumping
in the rig and driving into town.

What if you extrapolate that out even further, lets
say to an entire
county, with private roads then becoming something
along the lines of
not 2 miles, but likely 2,000 miles? Let's then
assume that 10-15
percent of such would want to kick in the bucks to
keep the roads
open. What about the other 85 percent that opted out,
yet enjoyed
open and clear roads anyway?

Me:
The way you deal with such situations - if the rewards
would outweigh the costs - is to set up tollbooths so
that people who are using the roads have to pay for
their use. It's probably not going to be very
economical for you to try to charge people a toll for
using YOUR private road (though, who knows? perhaps it
might be?). But certainly if some group owned a
particular road, it would not be difficult for them to
figure out some way of charging fees for use of their
road that would pay for maintence and still leave a
profit.

You:
Human nature is also a part of this too. It's called
greed. They want
the benefits, but don't want to contribute their fair
share. How
would you force them to pay their fair share? Now you
are talking
about the use of force aren't you? How would that be
very much
different from government levying taxes to do the same
thing?

Me:
I don't think it's ever right to force people to pay
their "fair share." You figure out a way to charge
user fees or the people don't pay. It is never
appropriate to initiate force and steal money from
people.

You:
There is no way, human nature as it is, that anarchy
could ever
provide for liberty, security, or even bare essential
services. As
I've stated my case above, you're not going to get any
increase in
freedom -- rather, you're going to be living in stark
horror over
which "other" association "war lord" might come in and
take it all
away from you. Or, how you might drive to work the
next morning
because another group of individuals decided the road
isn't worth
maintaining any longer. At some point, yes (I know
you don't like
this) a "government" would be formed to provide
security, road
maintenance, and other services that are essential and
necessary for
any civilization to survive.

Me:
Granted, there are a number of potential problems with
private roads. Still, to my way of thinking, you
either believe the free market works or you don't.
I've seen enough evidence to support the idea that
free market can fairly and efficiently provide needed
services to people in many, many areas (including
areas that people have said were "impossible" to
provide without force) that I have no doubt that the
free market could also provide usable private roads.

I don't know exactly how the free market would take
care of the issue of private roads, but usable roads
have been private in the past and I have no doubt that
they could be private in the future.

If I assumed that a State was needed to tax people in
order to provide roads, then why shouldn't I also
favor the State taxing people to provide other desired
goods like health care or housing or food? How do you
determine which goods should be provided through
coercion and which should be provided through
persuasion?

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Indian Cigarettes...
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:27:29 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings everyone!

Is it really like this folks?

[Image]

I know, I've been gone for a while, a couple of years anyway. Marlboros at
$75.00 a carton? The cost here in the Philippines is around $0.45 cents a
pack. Same great taste, just not the 1,800 percent tax to enjoy the choice
or luxury in doing so!

If this is for real, I REALLY feel your pain! Now what do you want to do to
change any of this? Anything? It's your dime.

To bring this home to roost, the REAL cost of a whole carton of Marlboro's
is really about $4.50. The rest is all in taxes.

Why should I ever anymore consider any options still available to come back
home?

Maybe an outright overthrow of all existenting government in the U.S. might
be a practical choice after all! That is, if anyone else is still left, and
even has an urge to defend their own right to make such choices without
paying the devil to do so!

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Praise the Lord and pass the torpedoes
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 09:17:22 -0600
From: "Ted Dunlap" <teddunlap@outdrs.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>,
"Idaho Libertarians" <idaho_libs@yahoogroups.com>

I love that WWII phrase.
I don't use it much, but I think it a lot.
It is about hedging your bets ... insurance ...

I think there is a strong possibility that the socialists will
bleed this cow until it collapses. I believe major portions
of Atlas Shrugged could come to pass.

I moved from California (the nanny state) to Idaho to be
away from the dependent masses and near a lot of people
who still believe in responsibility... folks who have a chance
of surviving a collapse.

I regularly compete in the Civilian Marksmanship Program
(shooting an AR-15) and in Practical Pistol matches. I enjoy
match shooting and like to stay familiar with the tools that
would become necessary if the cash cow dies.

On the other hand, I dedicate a lot of time, energy, money
and my soul to the Libertarian Party. It is CHEAP compared
to the alternative. I am not convinced we will succeed, but
we offer THE ONLY HOPE for survival of "The Great
American Dream".

I don't think I am wasting my time with the LP. We have a
real chance here. Sure it is tough to sell the message that
you can't have everything you want just given to you, but
there are a growing number of folks becoming
dissatisfied and dissolusioned.

When you get weary from battling on the front lines, pull
back, take some time off, but don't walk away. Stay in
reserve for that time when you see a need you can fill
or do little bits rather than big ones.

Our numbers are growing. Our credibility is growing. We
are having little successes all over the country and beyond.
We can succeed. It is sure worth the effort.

Ted Dunlap


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: RE:Big Brother HOAX (probably)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:42:23 -0400
From: Zev Sero <zev.sero@encodasystems.com>
To: "'libnw@immosys.com'" <libnw@immosys.com>

I couldn't connnect to the site advertised, but it's almost certainly
a hoax. See http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/license.htm

--
Zev Sero "If France rearms, there will be peace;
zsero@free-market.net if Germany rearms, there will be war."
Winston Churchill

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: RE:Big Brother HOAX (probably)
Date: 24 Aug 2002 12:12:23 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Fri, 2002-08-23 at 13:42, Zev Sero wrote:
> I couldn't connnect to the site advertised, but it's almost certainly
> a hoax. See http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/license.htm

No, not a hoax, a joke.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography - Strike the
Root.....
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 22:47:21 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi frank,

comes to market-anarchism, which is the term i prefer, i appreciate your
concerns. i do. the problem i have, frank, is that you seem to write about
your concerns as if market-anarchists have never thought about them, much
less have they responded to them. you're wrong about that, frank. bigtime
wrong, as michelle's admirable response to you indicates.

i believe you wrote something like that you would prefer to be a
market-anarchist were it not for the insurmountable problems. well, frank,
check out the two sites below. they may not convince you, but at least i
figure you will find a body of thought which you can respect while
disagreeing.

government grows from one premise, and one premise only: the premise that
some human institution can morally, legitimately and practically have a
monopoly on the use of **initiated** physical agression. i would think
defending that premise would give any libertarian pause, and an incentive to
discover that such an institution is niether moral, legitimate or practical.

i'd try it with dealing with some of your concerns right now, but i'm real
short of time.

sincerely,

larry

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

http://strike-the-root.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: the evil of government......
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 01:52:04 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

rob@strike-the-root.com

hiya, frank,

response below:

Maybe an outright overthrow of all existenting government in the U.S. might
be a practical choice after all! That is, if anyone else is still left, and
even has an urge to defend their own right to make such choices without
paying the devil to do so!

Kindest regards,
Frank

what ya mean "maybe", frank? i thought you were a lib (grin).

well, given your spelling of "existenting" government, maybe you are trying
to make the finest of distinction, like most min-archists do (grin).

subscribe to the above link, frank. they will blow your mind daily.

i figure there is hope for you yet, frank (grin).

pluuze, frank, subscribe. government is pure evil, in all of its forms.

larry f.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: the evil of government......
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:56:57 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

In case you wanted to know my opinion in this, my guess is that it would NOT
be a net benefit to the world were all gov'ts to vanish this minute.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: the evil of government......
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:46:57 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, robert,

response below:

on 8/24/02 11:56 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@bestweb.net wrote:

> In case you wanted to know my opinion in this, my guess is that it would
NOT
> be a net benefit to the world were all gov'ts to vanish this minute.

i figure your "guess" is a certainty. your hypothetical ain't gonna happen,
though, so niether of us have to worry about it. liberty must be achieved a
step at a time. even the success of the american revolution required a long
history of anticedents: the renassance, the enlightenment, the magna carta,
the common law, john locke - the list is long. i do maintain, however, that
getting there a step at a time, there is nothing either immoral or
impractical about market-anarchy which would require humans to stop short
with a minarchist state. to say it another way: even a minarchist state
necessarily rests on a monopoly on initiated physical violence. i see
nothing which justifies such a monopoly, either morally or practically.

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:09:33 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

on 8/23/02 4:43 PM, Harry.Browne@AmericanLibertyFoundation.net at
Harry.Browne@AmericanLibertyFoundation.net wrote:

>
>
> L i b e r t y W i r e
>
> |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|
>
> HARRY BROWNE'S LIBERTY & PEACE COMMENTARY
> published every Thursday on
> WorldNetDaily.com
>
> How to Oppose Terrorism
>
> by Harry Browne
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28690
>
> I frequently get emails from people saying that I
> only complain -- and never offer solutions to the
> terrorism problem. That isn't true, see...
> http://harrybrowne.org/TerrorismSeries.htm
> but here's a laundry list of "Do"s and "Don't"s
> regarding the war. (And please note that it doesn't
> include being nice to the terrorists.)
>
> What to Do
>
> * Repeal the regulations that prohibit guns on
> planes -- and that mandate metal detectors and
> security searches at airports. Before those
> measures were introduced in 1973, there were no
> reported cases of passengers shooting each other
> by accident or in arguments. There _were_ a few
> hijackings using guns, but far fewer passengers
> actually died than have been killed since
> introducing the security measures.
>
> * Recognize that 9/11 was a trillion-to-one shot
> that couldn't be duplicated in a million years.
> So don't turn America upside-down, causing
> billions of dollars in losses to companies and
> business travelers to prevent the repetition of
> something that most likely won't happen again
> anyway.
>
> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> -- creating hundreds of millions more
> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> shoots him on sight.
>
> * Declare an end to the so-called War on Terrorism.
> Call it a victory, a defeat, or an armistice.
> But quit acting as though it's an excuse to
> invade any country or take away our civil
> liberties.
>
> For the Future . . .
>
> These long-term measures should be taken:
>
> * Bring all American troops home. They're a
> principal cause of the anti-American feeling
> that provides financial support, networking, and
> manpower for thugs who wouldn't be much of a
> threat otherwise. How would you feel if Chinese
> troops were stationed in your city?
>
> * Stop telling other countries who their leaders
> should be or what their foreign policy must be.
> President Bush can buy off foreign leaders with
> your tax money, but he can't buy the friendship
> of the people in those countries -- people who
> suffer because of misguided policies forced on
> them by arrogant American know-it-alls. How
> would you feel if the Russians issued ultimatums
> regarding how our country must be run?
>
> * End all foreign aid -- military and economic. It
> has ruined countries, provided resources to our
> enemies, and turned hundreds of millions of
> people against America.
>
> * Stop choosing sides in foreign political battles.
> They're none of our business, and our meddling
> usually comes back to haunt us. (Remember, our
> government supported Iraq in its war against
> Iran.)
>
> * Recognize that foreigners don't care whether or
> not you're "free." They do care whether or not
> our government is interfering in their country.
>
> What Not to Do
>
> And here's a list of things we definitely should
> _not_ do. . . .
>
> * Don't set up military tribunals that operate
> without the Anglo-Saxon rules of evidence.
> That's a sure way to convict the wrong people
> and allow the real criminals to continue
> hurting us.
>
> * Don't imprison people without trial, without a
> lawyer to defend them, and without access to
> their families and the press. What's the point
> of "defending America" if we throw away American
> principles?
>
> * Don't invade Iraq. That's probably the only way
> to motivate Saddam Hussein to attack us with
> whatever dangerous weapons he might have. So
> long as we leave him alone, he won't commit the
> suicidal act of provoking the U.S. to drop
> nuclear bombs on him.
>
> * Don't disrespect the sovereignty of foreign
> countries when chasing Osama Bin Laden. How
> would you like foreign police or military to run
> around your city chasing people they think are
> criminals?
>
> * Don't assume that your government tells you the
> gospel truth -- or that it will succeed in
> anything it does. Don't forget that these same
> politicians told you they were running budget
> surpluses while they were hiding deficits by
> stealing from Social Security. And these are
> the same Keystone Kops who have promised for
> decades to stamp out drugs, poverty, crime, and
> sin. How well have they succeeded?
>
> * Don't let politicians use the so-called War on
> Terrorism as an excuse to take away our
> remaining freedoms.
>
> Apology
>
> I'm sorry that I can't snap my fingers and undo 50
> years of bad American foreign policy. Unfortunately,
> by continuing to tell the rest of the world what to
> do, President Bush is making a bad situation even
> worse.
>
> So here's a final _don't_:
>
> Don't lose your self-respect. It isn't necessary
> for you to speak out against the war, but don't
> embarrass yourself by joining in patriotic displays
> that are nothing but sound and fury.
>
> If you deceive others or deceive yourself, you too
> will be a casualty of the so-called War on
> Terrorism.
>
> Harry Browne is the Director of Public Policy for
> American Liberty Foundation.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Summer, plus Christmas, are the two most
> challenging periods for most non-profits. But the
> Christmas holiday really only lasts for three weeks
> or so. American Liberty Foundation is no exception
> to this rule. We're at the tail end of our toughest
> season.
>
> Our saving grace this Summer was the opening of
> http://www.eLibertyTools.com
>
> Next week, we will be releasing three bits of
> good news. Plus we hope to release another new
> product. We've worked long hours to make these
> things happen and we think you'll be pleased
> when you hear them.
>
> Now would be an excellent time for you to check
> out the wonderful products at our store, or you
> can make a much appreciated contribution by
> clicking here:
> http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/gateway.htm
>
> Thanks so much for your continuing support
> of our libertarian outreach.
>
> Jim Babka
> President
> American Liberty Foundation
>
> MAILING ADDRESS: American Liberty Foundation
> 6718 Lenclair St
> Alexandria, VA 22306
>
>
> |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: 24 Aug 2002 12:18:06 -0600
From: Bill Anderson <bill@libc.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:

> > * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> > in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> > consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> > Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> > he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> > -- creating hundreds of millions more
> > anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> > terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> > attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> > terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> > -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> > shoots him on sight.

Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other than
his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the mindset
of these people.

--
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 14:54:42 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hi, bill,

mostly i agree with you bill, which is why i would prefer that ossama be
captured alive and *not* killed. i would prefer that he be locked up naked
in the central park zoo where all humans could visit to pay him homage, or
to taunt him as they choose.

lf

on 8/24/02 11:18 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
>
>>> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
>>> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
>>> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
>>> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
>>> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
>>> -- creating hundreds of millions more
>>> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
>>> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
>>> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
>>> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
>>> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
>>> shoots him on sight.
>
> Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
> how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
> will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other than
> his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
> the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the mindset
> of these people.
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 17:34:04 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Larry (and Bill):

Actually, I figure that our government has already found the
solution. He's probably dead under tons of rock, or perhaps that group
that was supposedly a bunch of "shepherds" (attacked by one of our
"Predator drones") included him. My guess is that if the government knows
he's dead, they aren't going to say. Also, any information about it is
probably highly classified. If at some time he were to surrender (with a
minimal number of colleagues and no press), he'd probably be taken away
somewhere, shot, and then dumped over the Marianas Trench on a mission so
highly classified and compartmentalized that only Bush or Cheney and
possibly some general could put it all together and even figure out the
general area to be searching. (Of course, there are probably even better
ways to do it.)

So, no body. No certainty about where he died or was captured or held in
captivity or where the remains are. Therefore, no place to build a
shrine. He'll be like Elvis for a while: everyone will have a friend of a
friend who knew someone who saw him sometime. Slowly he'll just become
"the guy that pulled off a big one against the US, which brought some
massive changes to the Arab world, represented the last dying gasp of
militant Islam, and motivated the western world sufficiently to nearly
eradicate terrorism."

Obviously, we've got a long way to go to get there and we face some
internal dangers on the way. But I'd say the odds are in our favor.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

>hi, bill,
>
>mostly i agree with you bill, which is why i would prefer that ossama be
>captured alive and *not* killed. i would prefer that he be locked up naked
>in the central park zoo where all humans could visit to pay him homage, or
>to taunt him as they choose.
>
>lf
>
>on 8/24/02 11:18 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
> >
> >>> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> >>> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> >>> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> >>> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> >>> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> >>> -- creating hundreds of millions more
> >>> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> >>> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> >>> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> >>> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> >>> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> >>> shoots him on sight.
> >
> > Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
> > how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
> > will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other than
> > his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
> > the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the mindset
> > of these people.
> >
> >
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
>To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
>To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
>Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
>Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
>URLs for Liberty Northwest:
>Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
>Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
>-------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 05:41:49 -0400
From: "G Triest" <garyonthenet@yahoo.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Well Lowell, that certainly would prevent him from ever being a popular
martyr for others to die for or emualate.
They would think he is still out there having pulled the big one over on the
Satan, when we in fact know he aint round here no more.
Also they would save some $25M for the finders fee in getting him
prosecuted.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: Terrorism Solutions from Harry Browne

> Hello Larry (and Bill):
>
> Actually, I figure that our government has already found the
> solution. He's probably dead under tons of rock, or perhaps that group
> that was supposedly a bunch of "shepherds" (attacked by one of our
> "Predator drones") included him. My guess is that if the government knows
> he's dead, they aren't going to say. Also, any information about it is
> probably highly classified. If at some time he were to surrender (with a
> minimal number of colleagues and no press), he'd probably be taken away
> somewhere, shot, and then dumped over the Marianas Trench on a mission so
> highly classified and compartmentalized that only Bush or Cheney and
> possibly some general could put it all together and even figure out the
> general area to be searching. (Of course, there are probably even better
> ways to do it.)
>
> So, no body. No certainty about where he died or was captured or held in
> captivity or where the remains are. Therefore, no place to build a
> shrine. He'll be like Elvis for a while: everyone will have a friend of a
> friend who knew someone who saw him sometime. Slowly he'll just become
> "the guy that pulled off a big one against the US, which brought some
> massive changes to the Arab world, represented the last dying gasp of
> militant Islam, and motivated the western world sufficiently to nearly
> eradicate terrorism."
>
> Obviously, we've got a long way to go to get there and we face some
> internal dangers on the way. But I'd say the odds are in our favor.
>
> Lowell C. Savage
> It's the freedom, stupid!
> Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
>
> >hi, bill,
> >
> >mostly i agree with you bill, which is why i would prefer that ossama be
> >captured alive and *not* killed. i would prefer that he be locked up
naked
> >in the central park zoo where all humans could visit to pay him homage,
or
> >to taunt him as they choose.
> >
> >lf
> >
> >on 8/24/02 11:18 AM, Bill Anderson at bill@libc.org wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2002-08-24 at 03:09, larry fullmer wrote:
> > >
> > >>> * Find Osama bin Laden, capture him, and try him
> > >>> in America. _He must have a fair trial_ --
> > >>> consistent with the rules of evidence and the
> > >>> Bill of Rights. If he's killed without a trial,
> > >>> he'll become a martyr throughout the Muslim world
> > >>> -- creating hundreds of millions more
> > >>> anti-Americans who will support future acts of
> > >>> terrorism. If he isn't really behind the 9/11
> > >>> attacks, killing him without a fair trial
> > >>> terminates the hunt for the real criminal
> > >>> -- leaving us in danger. So prosecute anyone who
> > >>> shoots him on sight.
> > >
> > > Honestly, to those who would consider him a martyr, it doesn't matter
> > > how he winds up dead. If he kills himself rather than be captured, he
> > > will be considered a martyr. If he is given a trial by anyone other
than
> > > his friends, and killed, he will be considered a martyr. To me, and to
> > > the experts I've dealt with, this demonstrates ignorance of the
mindset
> > > of these people.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
> > LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
> >
> >To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> >To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> >Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> >Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
> >
> >URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> >Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> >Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> >-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:31:41 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> i believe you wrote something like that you would prefer to be a
> market-anarchist were it not for the insurmountable problems.

No, not really. I was referring mainly to human nature itself, which
would make it impossible to exercise freedom at all in a pure
anarchy. If human nature was really all about "freedom" then, I would
find no problem with anarchy. The free "market" as we are again
finding out, is also something about greedy, immoral individual with a
propensity to defraud.

I'm still trying to sort out what anarchists believe concerning a
court system, or any system at all that could redress things like
fraud, murder, rape, aggression. All of this is human nature too.
Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all of it, I have NO
reason whatsoever to trust that human nature favours liberty! That's
the key problem when considering the merits of anarchy. Who, or better
yet, what organization will be delegated POWER to represent those who
have become victims of aggression? One individual can't address such
a problem, unless they happen to have the power, economic resources,
and so forth, to do so! Show me how, in an anarchist reality, how
people can be FREE! Isn't that really what this discussion is all
about?

I spent a lot of time last night drawing up rather graphically couched
language in various situations to show that anarchy would be only an
exercise -- and is wrongly placed and couched in idealism, assuming
human nature is always honest. Real human nature, in reality is hardly
EVER honest. Liberty is NOT on the minds of those who control power
and economic status. And ultimately, it is NOT likely in the minds of
very many others either, including those who have no wealth to speak
of!

> well, frank,
> check out the two sites below. they may not convince you, but at least i
> figure you will find a body of thought which you can respect while
> disagreeing.

Larry, I am VERY sure, I have heard all of these arguments before,
many times before. I respect them all as idealistic, nothing more.
They aren't practical, they don't account for aggression and human
nature, and they won't work on principle. Governments, national
sovereignty, national defence, border control, court systems, and
police are necessary to make liberty possible! I am not saying that
the current systems in place in the United States are even remotely
close to bringing liberty either. But they one were! Or, pretty much
so, discounting slavery and other such aberrations.

> government grows from one premise, and one premise only: the premise that
> some human institution can morally, legitimately and practically have a
> monopoly on the use of **initiated** physical agression.

I don't agree. Government exists by human, individual choice, and
delegation of power over some set of principles. In the interest of
history, the US government was formed mainly to protect rights,
against both external and internal aggression. That government should
have been restrained by people who care about liberty. Over the
course of time, it has degraded to nothing less than a monopolistic
democratically-controlled police state, and YOU know that! That was
never the original intent. That's exactly why the vast majority of
the American people today tolerate and approve of the Shrub
Regime's<tm> advocacy of aggression, internal and external, even at
their own peril. Anarchy isn't going to solve this problem either,
but would only make it impossible. In a pure "economic" or whatever,
"anarchy" the most brutal and biggest kid on the block is going to
fuck you, take away what you have, and finally kill you if you
resist! That's the bottom line. You have no redress, no court
system, no military protection, no police. At the very time you
though you were the most "FREE" would be the very time you would
become the most vulnerable in losing your own life, your existence,
and everything you thought you once had.

Unfortunately, and this is why anarchy couldn't and never could work,
human nature is all about aggression! Enough said. Prove me wrong.
Show me in historical context where I have erred. Is HUMAN NATURE in
history ever been about liberty, or is it about AGGRESSION? Think
about this long and hard. Has any anarchy every survived against
aggression? EVER? And, if so, HOW has it done so?

So, if you want liberty, or as much of it as you can get and protect,
then there has to be another way, and that includes at least, a very
limited, restrained, and clearly defined "government"! Somewhat along
the order of the original Bill of Rights to the US Constitution,
clearly had in mind. It also requires people, real individuals, who
will support such restraints upon government, such as the Tenth
Amendment.

> i would think
> defending that premise would give any libertarian pause, and an incentive
to
> discover that such an institution is niether moral, legitimate or
practical.

It may not be any of those things. But is it unfortunately NECESSARY.
It is also necessary for the people to want freedom, and insist upon
constraints upon government abuse of power. Again, power should be
carefully delegated, and locked in check. That was the original
purpose of the Bill of Rights, really an afterthought to the US
Constitution. Many, at the time, felt it wasn't even needed at all,
that it was already clearly indicated. Even that, today has been
bastardized and often called into question.

> i'd try it with dealing with some of your concerns right now, but i'm real
> short of time.

At any rate Larry, there is no easy way to again achieve "freedom".
You can't do it all by yourself. You and I will be dead and gone,
likely before the next real battle for freedom ever occurs. That's
sad. However, it's an ongoing struggle, and it has existed at least
in recorded history from the time of Cicero! Probably before that.
For real freedom to exist, you have to have a society that understands
basic premises. The "right" to life, liberty and property. We do not
have such a society in America today.

I'm stuck with some choices too. Should I just say, "Fuck it", and
stay in the Philippines where social and economic liberty is much
stronger (due to the absence of government), or should I struggle to
come back home (which I am doing) to go home, but again: to a people
who don't give a damn about liberty anyway, and where a "police state"
government is ALL POWERFUL?

Those are my choices. And, in my case, perhaps I don't have the
luxury of such a choice anymore, because the US government has already
made its case, and apparently by the consent of the people.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:33:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Frank,

The free "market" as
> we are again
> finding out, is also something about greedy, immoral
> individual with a
> propensity to defraud.
>
> I'm still trying to sort out what anarchists believe
> concerning a
> court system, or any system at all that could
> redress things like
> fraud, murder, rape, aggression.

If you are really interested in understanding how
anarchists think law and police could be provided read
Bruce Benson's books "The Enterprise of Law" and "To
Serve and Protect." They present a very well reasoned
and researched argument for how such services can be
effectively provided without a State.

All of this is
> human nature too.
> Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all of
> it, I have NO
> reason whatsoever to trust that human nature favours
> liberty!

I have no reason to believe human nature favors
liberty either. That's why I'm an anarchist. I think
liberty will best be served by not creating
institutions that allow people to legally initiate
force.

That's
> the key problem when considering the merits of
> anarchy. Who, or better
> yet, what organization will be delegated POWER to
> represent those who
> have become victims of aggression? One individual
> can't address such
> a problem, unless they happen to have the power,
> economic resources,
> and so forth, to do so!

No one would be "delegated" that power. People would
purchase the security they wanted from the private
organizations of their choice.

Show me how, in an
> anarchist reality, how
> people can be FREE! Isn't that really what this
> discussion is all
> about?

Take the US exactly as it is now and remove the
government's ability to tax. You'd be pretty close to
my view of anarchism.

> > well, frank,
> > check out the two sites below. they may not
> convince you, but at least i
> > figure you will find a body of thought which you
> can respect while
> > disagreeing.
>
> Larry, I am VERY sure, I have heard all of these
> arguments before,
> many times before. I respect them all as
> idealistic, nothing more.
> They aren't practical, they don't account for
> aggression and human
> nature, and they won't work on principle.

I am rather doubtful that you have heard the arguments
before - or, if you have, that you've really listened
to them. Libertarians aren't anarchists because they
have an idealized view of human nature or think humans
are fundamentally good and honest. We are anarchists
precisely because we think it is in human nature to
try to aggress against other people and we believe the
best way to prevent power hungry people from being
able to exercise their desire to aggress is to prevent
there from being any institutions that allow for legal
aggression.

If you are truly interested in this question, I would
suggest that you read the arguments again with an open
mind - trying to understand what anarchists really
think instead of just projecting your own
preconceptions about anarchism onto them. Your
characterization of anarchy sounds a bit like the
communist version of anarchism, but it is NOTHING like
any of libertarian versions of anarchism I have
studied.

> Governments, national
> sovereignty, national defence, border control, court
> systems, and
> police are necessary to make liberty possible! I am
> not saying that
> the current systems in place in the United States
> are even remotely
> close to bringing liberty either. But they one
> were! Or, pretty much
> so, discounting slavery and other such aberrations.

Why are they necessary? I think its idealistic and
naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
any great length of time. When has it ever happened
in the past?

The US is the best example of a government that was
deliberately established to have limited and
decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
less than 150 years for power hungry people to destroy
the republic that the founders so carefully created.
And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
evolving into a police state.

I don't think the destruction of the US Republic is
just an aberration or soley due to "mistakes" of the
governed or the governors. Back when the Constitution
was written, the founders knew it was in nature of
government to grow and become more powerful at the
expense of the people. They did their very best to
put all the limits they could on the government to
prevent this growth of power. And, still, it did not
take very long for the government to break through
those limits.

I think creating a society where liberty flourishes
will be difficult under any circumstances. I just
think that liberty has the best chance to exist in a
society where there are no institutions that allow
people to legally initiate force. If any institutions
are in place that can legally initiate force, it is
inevitable that through their use of force those
institutions will become stronger and more powerful -
in exactly the way that the US, once the bastion of
freedom for the world, has deteriorated into a police
state.

> > government grows from one premise, and one premise
> only: the premise that
> > some human institution can morally, legitimately
> and practically have a
> > monopoly on the use of **initiated** physical
> agression.
>
> I don't agree. Government exists by human,
> individual choice, and
> delegation of power over some set of principles. In
> the interest of
> history, the US government was formed mainly to
> protect rights,
> against both external and internal aggression.

In a few rare cases, that has been true. But most
governments throughout history have little to do with
a social contract or "protecting rights" (except maybe
the rights of the aristocracy).

Anarchy isn't going to solve this
> problem either,
> but would only make it impossible. In a pure
> "economic" or whatever,
> "anarchy" the most brutal and biggest kid on the
> block is going to
> fuck you, take away what you have, and finally kill
> you if you
> resist! That's the bottom line. You have no
> redress, no court
> system, no military protection, no police.

It is exactly for this reason that I think you have
either not read or not paid sufficient attention to
libertarian theories of anarchism. No libertarian
anarchist that I am aware of wants to do away with
laws, "court systems," or "police." Rather, what they
want is to PREVENT the most brutal and biggest kid on
the block (the State) from controlling the laws, the
court systems, and the police.

> Unfortunately, and this is why anarchy couldn't and
> never could work,
> human nature is all about aggression! Enough said.

Exactly! It is in human nature for people to want to
aggress against other people. And that is precisely
why libertarian anarchists want to get rid of
institutions that allow people to legally aggress
against other people and that reward them for doing
so.

Has any anarchy every
> survived against
> aggression? EVER? And, if so, HOW has it done so?

Alas, most anarchist societies have been overcome by
the aggression of more powerful States. There will
always be a danger, even in an anarchist society, of
aggression from outside destroying that society. The
best way to prevent this from happening, though, is 1)
for the population to be well armed and 2) for the
society to have strong enough economic ties with the
rest of the world that no other State would want to
harm themselves by attacking the society (and killing
the goose who laid the golden egg).

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Annotated Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 18:01:43 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Michelle:
>Hi Frank,
>
>
> All of this is
> > human nature too.
> > Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all of
> > it, I have NO
> > reason whatsoever to trust that human nature favours
> > liberty!
>
>I have no reason to believe human nature favors
>liberty either. That's why I'm an anarchist. I think
>liberty will best be served by not creating
>institutions that allow people to legally initiate
>force.

And the reason I am *not* an anarchist is that I think people will
eventually form those institutions anyway. The problem is that when you
have a "culture" which says those institutions should not be created, then
they will get created on an ad-hoc and un-cover basis which means that only
a few people will have any say in how they work. Guess who the next
tyrants will be?

> That's
> > the key problem when considering the merits of
> > anarchy. Who, or better
> > yet, what organization will be delegated POWER to
> > represent those who
> > have become victims of aggression? One individual
> > can't address such
> > a problem, unless they happen to have the power,
> > economic resources,
> > and so forth, to do so!
>
>No one would be "delegated" that power. People would
>purchase the security they wanted from the private
>organizations of their choice.

And what prevents the "private organizations" from turning into what
amounts to a government? After all, if you are running one of these
organizations, it could be mighty tempting to start running "black bag"
jobs of one kind or another on the people who aren't paying you.

>Why are they [governments] necessary? I think its idealistic and
>naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
>any great length of time. When has it ever happened
>in the past?

WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few examples. Certainly they are
examples of a "lesser of the two evils" winning against a "greater of the
two evils". But, as a practicality, you're not going to beat anything but
a very weak government, unless you have another government.

>The US is the best example of a government that was
>deliberately established to have limited and
>decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
>rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
>achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
>less than 150 years for power hungry people to destroy
>the republic that the founders so carefully created.
>And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
>evolving into a police state.

Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in others. Freedom of speech
and religion and due process have all increased over those years. What is
interesting is that much of the "sturm und drang" about "Asscroft" is that
he's trying to remove some of the gains in due process rights for suspected
terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
years ago, given a similar situation, many of Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
have been particularly controversial.

> Has any anarchy every
> > survived against
> > aggression? EVER? And, if so, HOW has it done so?
>
>Alas, most anarchist societies have been overcome by
>the aggression of more powerful States. There will
>always be a danger, even in an anarchist society, of
>aggression from outside destroying that society. The
>best way to prevent this from happening, though, is 1)
>for the population to be well armed and 2) for the
>society to have strong enough economic ties with the
>rest of the world that no other State would want to
>harm themselves by attacking the society (and killing
>the goose who laid the golden egg).

On this point, I think we all three have some level of agreement. An
anarchist society is basically impossible until the vast majority of the
world is a libertarian one--or until some society is so much more wealthy
than any other that aggression by the technologically backward governments
is simply inconceivable. (Think of a society with machine guns, night
vision scopes, CCTV cameras, etc. threatened by a country wielding
spears.) Of course, how do you get that sort of difference without having
trade bring the technologically backward country forward sufficiently to
use force against the anarchist society?

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography - Strike theRoot.....
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:37:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Lowell,

> > > Looking at ALL recorded history, and I mean all
> of
> > > it, I have NO
> > > reason whatsoever to trust that human nature
> favours
> > > liberty!
> >
> >I have no reason to believe human nature favors
> >liberty either. That's why I'm an anarchist. I
> think
> >liberty will best be served by not creating
> >institutions that allow people to legally initiate
> >force.
>
> And the reason I am *not* an anarchist is that I
> think people will
> eventually form those institutions anyway. The
> problem is that when you
> have a "culture" which says those institutions
> should not be created, then
> they will get created on an ad-hoc and un-cover
> basis which means that only
> a few people will have any say in how they work.
> Guess who the next
> tyrants will be?

I don't agree with you, but that's at least a
comprehensible argument. :)

> > That's
> > > the key problem when considering the merits of
> > > anarchy. Who, or better
> > > yet, what organization will be delegated POWER
> to
> > > represent those who
> > > have become victims of aggression? One
> individual
> > > can't address such
> > > a problem, unless they happen to have the power,
> > > economic resources,
> > > and so forth, to do so!
> >
> >No one would be "delegated" that power. People
> would
> >purchase the security they wanted from the private
> >organizations of their choice.
>
> And what prevents the "private organizations" from
> turning into what
> amounts to a government? After all, if you are
> running one of these
> organizations, it could be mighty tempting to start
> running "black bag"
> jobs of one kind or another on the people who aren't
> paying you.

Well, there's always going to be the danger of States
arising and trying to aggress against other people.
There have always been people who have wanted to
initiate force against other people and I have no
doubt that there will always continue to be people who
try to initiate force against other people.

Still, I think the best way to prevent States from
arising is to not have a State to begin with. If most
people are armed and have a certain level of wealth,
it's going to be difficult for a group within that
society to create a State from scratch that can
overpower everyone else.

> >Why are they [governments] necessary? I think its
> idealistic and
> >naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
> >any great length of time. When has it ever
> happened
> >in the past?
>
> WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few
> examples. Certainly they are
> examples of a "lesser of the two evils" winning
> against a "greater of the
> two evils". But, as a practicality, you're not
> going to beat anything but
> a very weak government, unless you have another
> government.

Yes, there have been wars where an army was able to
stop the "aggression" of another army. Still, war is
the lifeblood of the State and even if wars like World
War II and the Cold War (and the War on Drugs, the War
on Poverty, the War on Terrorism, etc.) succeed in
stopping some examples of "aggression" they also
usually produce a lot of aggression.

I don't look at World War II and think, there's an
example of the US saving "liberty." Yes, we did get
Hitler out of power, but we helped get Stalin into
power and a great deal of damage was done to liberty
within America.

> >The US is the best example of a government that was
> >deliberately established to have limited and
> >decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
> >rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
> >achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
> >less than 150 years for power hungry people to
> destroy
> >the republic that the founders so carefully
> created.
> >And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
> >evolving into a police state.
>
> Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in
> others. Freedom of speech
> and religion and due process have all increased over
> those years. What is
> interesting is that much of the "sturm und drang"
> about "Asscroft" is that
> he's trying to remove some of the gains in due
> process rights for suspected
> terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
> RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
> years ago, given a similar situation, many of
> Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
> have been particularly controversial.

Yes, there are some definitely some areas where there
is more liberty now than there was early in the US's
history. Still, I think that overall there has been
more liberty lost than gained.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated B
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 19:58:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

Michelle wrote in small part:

>If any institutions
>are in place that can legally initiate force, it is
>inevitable that through their use of force those
>institutions will become stronger and more powerful -

Then progress would be impossible, so the statement above must be
incomplete.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated B
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 21:16:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Robert,

> >If any institutions
> >are in place that can legally initiate force, it
> is
> >inevitable that through their use of force those
> >institutions will become stronger and more
> powerful -
>
> Then progress would be impossible, so the statement
> above must be
> incomplete.

You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
Robert. What are you talking about? Very little
progress is achieved by initiating force; indeed, the
more that institutions (i.e. States) in a particular
place initiate force, the less progress usually
occurs.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
B
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:16:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Michelle wrote in part:

> > >If any institutions
> > >are in place that can legally initiate force, it
> > >is
> > >inevitable that through their use of force those
> > >institutions will become stronger and more
> > >powerful -
> >
> > Then progress would be impossible, so the statement
> > above must be
> > incomplete.
>
> You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
> Robert.

If such institutions inevitably became stronger and more powerful, then
nothing could be done about them. Else, what would "inevitably" mean?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated B
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

--- Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Michelle wrote in part:
>
> > > >If any institutions
> > > >are in place that can legally initiate
> force, it
> > > >is
> > > >inevitable that through their use of force
> those
> > > >institutions will become stronger and more
> > > >powerful -
> > >
> > > Then progress would be impossible, so the
> statement
> > > above must be
> > > incomplete.
> >
> > You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
> > Robert.
>
> If such institutions inevitably became stronger and
> more powerful, then
> nothing could be done about them. Else, what would
> "inevitably" mean?

Not necessarily. It is inevitable that the
institutions would grow in the same way it is
inevitable that a human child will grow into a human
adult. Still, things can be done to stop the growth
of the institutions. A human child might be killed
(thus stopping growth); a State might face to legal
challenges to various laws or civil disobedience. The
question is first, how likely is it that such measures
will occur and second, how likely is that they will be
effective in curbing the State's growth?

Some people, like Frank (I'm assuming), think that it
is possible to create an institution that can legally
initiate force AND keep it's powers in check IF the
citizenry are sufficiently vigilant. On the other
hand, I - like other market anarchists - am very
doubtful that the citizenry could do so even if they
wanted to. It is too easy for the State to increase
it's own powers and too difficult for citizens to
prevent the State from gaining power. The most the
citizens can hope to do, so long as a State
institution is in place, is to slow down the descent
into tyranny.

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:50:34 -0500
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@bestweb.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in very small part:

>>I think its idealistic and
>>naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
>>any great length of time. When has it ever happened
>>in the past?

>WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few examples.

I'd like your opinion on who was protecting liberty at Waterloo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 23:38:30 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello Robert:
>savagelc@ix.netcom.com wrote in very small part:

:-)

[Michelle wrote]
> >>I think its idealistic and
> >>naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
> >>any great length of time. When has it ever happened
> >>in the past?

[I wrote]
> >WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few examples.

[Robert wrote]
>I'd like your opinion on who was protecting liberty at Waterloo.

As I noted almost immediately afterward in my post, all of those involved a
greater and lesser of two evils. All told, I'd say that Napoleon was a
greater threat to liberty than the kings and dukes he was up
against. Napoleon was not defending the French Revolution, but rather was
an "Emperor" bent on the conquest of Europe (not that the French Revolution
was any great shakes, basically trading a petty tyrant, the king, with a
relatively peaceful social order for a tyrannical, blood-soaked mob
rule). On the one hand his policies, domestically, may have been more
"enlightened" and in some ways provided more freedom for the French people,
than either his predecessors or his contemporaries. But on the other hand,
his military adventures resulted in millions of deaths of soldiers and
civilians alike from Lisbon to Moscow and from Danzig to Cairo.

But I'm sure reasonable people will differ.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty: was: Anarcho-Capitalism: An
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:14:38 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Lowell!

"Lowell C. Savage" wrote to Robert Goodman...

> Napoleon was not defending the French Revolution, but rather was
> an "Emperor" bent on the conquest of Europe (not that the French
Revolution
> was any great shakes, basically trading a petty tyrant, the king, with a
> relatively peaceful social order for a tyrannical, blood-soaked mob
> rule).

One of the questions along these lines was concerned whether ANY
government at all could be expected to protect liberty for very long.

I believe the US government actually came closest to that, up to about
the time of the turn of the 20th century. Three things occurred which
dramatically changed the manner in which the US government was
constituted and would thereafter exercise power:

1. The democratization of the US Senate, from formerly state control,
to direct democratic vote, thus eliminating the balance of power
between the democratic House of Representatives and the Senate. As a
result, BOTH houses of Congress were constituted on the bases of mob
rule.

2. The creation of the Federal Reserve, which was neither Federal, nor
is there any reserve. This created the potential (which followed in
due course) for an inflationary money supply, and endless increases in
funding deficit government spending, more laws, programmes and police
jurisdiction.

3. The marxist graduated income tax, insuring the collateral
(taxpayers) for government borrowing.

Prior to this period, during the rather free reign of capitalism and
free markets, the US economy and the livelihood of the people were
growing at the fastest rates in history.

So maybe the answer is still yes, a government CAN be expected to
defend liberty if rightly constituted under such a system of
separation of powers. It was the breakdown of that constituted
separation of powers that resulted in democracy and mob rule
government bringing more tyranny and loss of freedom, and everything
else along with it. Unfortunately now that democracy in America is so
firmly entrenched, I seriously doubt that liberty can any longer be
peacefully brought back and put into place. It appears that the trend
for "democracy" is growing rather than declining, as the "Electoral
College" or direct vote for the Executive Branch, has been an ongoing
challenge for the last several decades. As is evident in recent
history, the trend is running heavily into centralization in virtually
all areas, including a national police infrastructure. Contrary to
the LP, the greatest danger today isn't the 'War on Drugs', but rather
the infamous 'War on Terror' that is currently only in its embryonic
stage.

It may be that the more loosely organized Russian Federation of
Independent States might have the propensity to achieve a much
stronger separation of powers, depending upon how that all shakes out
over the next several decades. If such a federation is allowed to
peacefully evolve, it certainly does have such a potential. The
geography of the region, such as it is, poses the greatest danger
against that peacefully evolving. North America is a far less hostile
environment than that of the Russian federation for example.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:38:57 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Michelle!

I'm going to answer you in three parts. First I want to talk about why I
don't think anarchy will work. Even though I have noted before (and will
again, I'm sure) that in order to have wholesale level slaughter, you need
a government. Anarchy can't manage that because you don't have a
government. However...I don't think it will work. The next post deals
with war and the final one with whether things are getting better or worse
here in the US. (Yup. I wrote the whole thing out then decided I needed
to split it.)

>Hi Lowell,
>
> > And the reason I am *not* an anarchist is that I
> > think people will
> > eventually form those institutions anyway. The
> > problem is that when you
> > have a "culture" which says those institutions
> > should not be created, then
> > they will get created on an ad-hoc and un-cover
> > basis which means that only
> > a few people will have any say in how they work.
> > Guess who the next
> > tyrants will be?
>
>I don't agree with you, but that's at least a
>comprehensible argument. :)

Thank you. I'll take what I can get. :-) And you're so nice in the way
you disagree, I almost hate to say that I disagree with you. :-)

> > And what prevents the "private organizations" from
> > turning into what
> > amounts to a government? After all, if you are
> > running one of these
> > organizations, it could be mighty tempting to start
> > running "black bag"
> > jobs of one kind or another on the people who aren't
> > paying you.
>
>Well, there's always going to be the danger of States
>arising and trying to aggress against other people.
>There have always been people who have wanted to
>initiate force against other people and I have no
>doubt that there will always continue to be people who
>try to initiate force against other people.
>
>Still, I think the best way to prevent States from
>arising is to not have a State to begin with. If most
>people are armed and have a certain level of wealth,
>it's going to be difficult for a group within that
>society to create a State from scratch that can
>overpower everyone else.

This was actually somewhat the situation in some parts of Europe when Rome
"fell." However, people rather quickly latched onto local strongmen (who
often were "strong" by virtue of having better military equipment.) The
deal would be struck somewhat as follows: the "strongman" would protect the
others, but in return, the others would pay a certain amount each year to
the "strongman" and would be available for battle. Of course, as more
people in an area "pledged their fealty", the remainder came under greater
pressure to do likewise. Eventually, the pressure could consist of
force. Then, of course, the "strongman" would engage in "pre-emptive"
strikes against the neighboring "strongman" who would be alleged to be an
evil person preparing to force the locals to pledge their fealty to
him. Of course, once the neighboring strongman was defeated, then his
vassals would generally pledge fealty to their conqueror. Of course, the
neighboring strongmen would see this and engage in "pre-emptive" strikes or
alliances of their own. And so the cycle would go until you had a
full-fledged government serving a king or emperor.

While the anarchist philosophers might think they'd avoid having such a
thing happen since they would have "security companies" and so on, I think
that what you'd find would be a similar thing occurring. The names and the
details and some of the methods might be different, but eventually, you'd
get approximately the same result.

I think it's too much a part of human nature to want to be "part of
something bigger" than oneself and it's too easy to create a panic which
needs "someone, anyone" to "save the day." Those two things together tell
me that anarchy is simply too unstable to sustain itself for very
long. Then, you get something put together in a panic or on the sly and
when you get everything sorted out, guess what? It benefits one person (or
a few) far more than anyone else.

So, what I prefer is that governments be created out in the open with a lot
of debate. That they be set up to avoid the problems that have plagued
states from time immemorial. It won't be perfect, but then nothing created
or run by human beings ever will be. The question is whether it will be
better than the likely alternative. So, given how I think Anarchy will
almost immediately tip into some sort of feudalism (although it wouldn't be
called that), I'd rather work on getting the government right and keeping
it right.

> > >Why are they [governments] necessary?

I don't think it's so much a matter of "why they are necessary" as a
question of "what kind we will have." Note: I don't think there's a
question that we will have a government--we will. And if we try to pretend
that we are getting by without one, we'll turn around and get bit in the
posterior by one that sprang up while we weren't looking.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:39:07 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello again, Michelle:

Here's part three, on things getting better in the US.

> > >The US is the best example of a government that was
> > >deliberately established to have limited and
> > >decentralized powers and to primarily protect human
> > >rights. The Constitution was a brilliant effort to
> > >achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It took
> > >less than 150 years for power hungry people to
> > destroy
> > >the republic that the founders so carefully
> > created.
> > >And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
> > >evolving into a police state.
> >
> > Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in
> > others. Freedom of speech
> > and religion and due process have all increased over
> > those years. What is
> > interesting is that much of the "sturm und drang"
> > about "Asscroft" is that
> > he's trying to remove some of the gains in due
> > process rights for suspected
> > terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
> > RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
> > years ago, given a similar situation, many of
> > Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
> > have been particularly controversial.
>
>Yes, there are some definitely some areas where there
>is more liberty now than there was early in the US's
>history. Still, I think that overall there has been
>more liberty lost than gained.

You may be correct. I guess the question is whether we've reached the
"point of no return" (I don't think so) or whether we're doomed to a
downward slide or whether we can climb back out to liberty. When I think
back over what has happened over the last 40 years, there's a lot of reason
for optimism. First of all, in the 50's, 60's and the 70's, we were
beating down the last vestiges of organized, government-supported
racism. We've swung the pendulum too far, and we're starting to
correct--but I don't think we'll over-correct and support anything that
smacks of government pushing down blacks (or other minorities).

Also, during that time, we thought we were fighting a rearguard action
against global Communism. Even Whittaker Chambers, when testifying against
Algier Hiss, thought that eventually communism would win, bad as it would
be. Now, in 2002, the remaining communists really aren't much more than
pretending to be "communist" and its more of a question of how much longer
the people will have to put up with it than anything else.

While we still have a lot of "economists" who either ignore or think
they've figured out a way around the principles of Frederic Bastiat (see
his classic essay, "That which is seen and that which is not seen" at
"
http://www.cpm.ll.ehime-u.ac.jp/akamachomepage/akamac_e-text_links/Bastiat.html
"
and follow a link, or do an internet search on "Bastiat".) Of course,
those who understand Bastiat have gotten considerably more sophisticated as
well. But in the 1970s, we had Nixon putting in wage and price controls
and Carter trying to ration energy, while in the 1990s we had Bush losing
because he raised taxes and Clinton realizing that, in many ways, the bond
traders (and their confidence in the solvency of the US) held his
presidency in their hands. People are learning, both here and worldwide
that socialism (in any form) simply doesn't work, and that freedom does
(Ok, so I'm still working on Frank on this one, but we've got to start
somewhere :-> ).

Bush "touched the Third Rail of American politics" and *didn't*
die. "Welfare reform" worked.

We've managed to avoid nationalized health care (except for our senior
citizens--and not yet all of them) and we are getting to see the health
care systems of the other nations buckle under the load of not enough
resources, poor efficiency, higher usage, and poor payscales causing a
brain drain of health-care talent.

Same thing with gun control. We have Democrats running from it as an issue
and Republicans (and a few Democrats) occasionally running against it (see
the Dingell (pro-gun) win over Rivers (anti-gun) in the
re-districting-forced Democrat primary). Not only that, but the cautionary
tales are starting to come in. While our crime rates are going down, crime
rates worldwide are trending up--particularly in places with gun control
(like the UK, which now has twice our violent crime rate--although their
murder rate hasn't increased enough to match our "murder with feet and
hands" rate...yet. But I expect that by about year 10 (2006) they'll have
somewhere between 2 and 3 times the murder rate they had at year 0
(1996)). Meanwhile we've almost entirely flipped the number of states that
didn't allow any form of concealed carry to the current number that are
"Right-to-Carry" states.

We're in the middle of what most Americans consider to be a "war", yet,
about the worst knock against the government is that it is "violating the
due process and privacy rights" of people suspected of being enemy
terrorists (ok, so some people don't like the idea of going after other
terrorist countries that aren't linked to 9/11 but they haven't
convincingly made a link to a degradation in our freedom here). And a big
part of that was a bipartisan bill that was rushed through without
sufficient debate. Now, there is actually a small bipartisan movement to
revisit some of that "PATRIOT Act" to pull some of the worst stuff
out. Meanwhile, proposals for an intrusive "National ID card" fell
flat. Gun control is *still* off the table. And one of the biggest issues
in the "War on Terror" is *whether we should give some freedom back to the
pilots of commercial airlines by letting them (with appropriate training)
*carry guns*!!!*

Public schools are slowly being pushed into a situation where they will
have to either get better or go out of business (personally, I think
they'll mostly get better). They're being pushed by both home-schooling
and by vouchers. Meanwhile, there may be some technological changes coming
which will completely put the traditional school out of business (over the
next 30-50 years, of course).

With the fires in the West this year, we may have the silver lining that
the so-called environmentalists are finally losing their credibility. Of
course, the "Spotted Owl" controversy, the "lynx hair" fraud, and the
"sucker fish" idiocy have contributed (to all our international friends, I
apologize for the NW focus). Once they lose their credibility, it becomes
a lot easier to point out to people that the rest of their "sky is falling"
rant isn't any better.

I'm an optimist in many ways. But this is more than a question of "is the
glass half full or half empty?". It's a question of "is the tub filling or
draining?" Well, while the tub may have sprung a few new leaks and had a
few hoses taken away, it's also had a few leaks plugged and added few more
hoses putting water in. So while it's hard to tell whether the water level
is rising, I kind of think it is. It's real easy to focus on the things
you don't like and then, since you are focusing on those things all the
time, you forget that there are a lot of other things going on that are
good.

This place is *still* the best place in the world! (And it's getting
better!)

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 03:39:02 -0700
From: "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hello again, Michelle:
Here's part two, on war.

> > > I think its idealistic and
> > >naive to think that a State can protect liberty for
> > >any great length of time. When has it ever
> > happened
> > >in the past?
> >
> > WWII, Cold War, Waterloo, just to name a few
> > examples. Certainly they are
> > examples of a "lesser of the two evils" winning
> > against a "greater of the
> > two evils". But, as a practicality, you're not
> > going to beat anything but
> > a very weak government, unless you have another
> > government.
>
> Yes, there have been wars where an army was able to
> stop the "aggression" of another army. Still, war is
> the lifeblood of the State and even if wars like World
> War II and the Cold War (and the War on Drugs, the War
> on Poverty, the War on Terrorism, etc.) succeed in
> stopping some examples of "aggression" they also
> usually produce a lot of aggression.

No question that "war is the lifeblood of the state" and that even the
winning side of a war "produces a lot of agression." But the question
isn't "would we be better off without war?", it's "are we better off
fighting this war than we would be if we don't fight?"

> I don't look at World War II and think, there's an
> example of the US saving "liberty." Yes, we did get
> Hitler out of power, but we helped get Stalin into
> power and a great deal of damage was done to liberty
> within America.

(Stalin had been in power for some time--since Lenin's death in 1924.)
Let me see. Had we not entered the war, Hitler might have eventually
conquered Britain. That would have also given him control of the
Mediterranean and all of North Africa. He then might have been able to
fight the Russians to a standstill. The Japanese could have completely
conquered China, southeast Asia and India (with all the fearsome
consequences that entails for those populations). Of course, it's also
possible that Russia would have defeated Germany by itself--and rolled all
the way to the Atlantic--meaning that *ALL* of Europe would have suffered
under communism rather than just the central and eastern parts. So, our
entering the war kept half of Europe out of the worst example of Fascism or
Communism. Then, once the dust settled, whoever ran things would have
eventually turned their attention on us. Not a pretty picture.

Also, had Germany survived much longer (which, without our assistance,
would have happened) then Hitler probably would have gotten the bomb. If
he was defeated before he could deploy it, then the Soviets would have had
it--as well as *all* the German rocket technology. An even less pretty
picture.

Maybe the US didn't "save" a whole lot of "liberty" in WWII--although we
did save plenty. But our participation made for a far better world than
would have resulted had we stayed out.

Lowell C. Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:38:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michelle <quicksilver810@yahoo.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Hi Lowell,

I don't entirely agree with your optimistic view of
things in the US, but I did want to say "thank you!"
for pointing out some of the good things that have
been going on as of late.

It's easy to focus on the bad stuff that is happening
in the world and then start feeling real pessimistic
about the future. But, still, there have been some
good things that happened, even politically!, in the
20th century and I appreciate your taking the time to
point them out.

(I may be a pessimist about politics, but I would
certainly LIKE to be an optimist. And it is nice to
read an optimistic perspective on things here every
now and then, to balance out all the doom and gloom.
:) )

Sincerely,
Michelle Eilers

--- "Lowell C. Savage" <savagelc@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Hello again, Michelle:
>
> Here's part three, on things getting better in the
> US.
>
> > > >The US is the best example of a government that
> was
> > > >deliberately established to have limited and
> > > >decentralized powers and to primarily protect
> human
> > > >rights. The Constitution was a brilliant
> effort to
> > > >achieve this. And guess what? It failed! It
> took
> > > >less than 150 years for power hungry people to
> > > destroy
> > > >the republic that the founders so carefully
> > > created.
> > > >And now, here we are, 200+ years later, rapidly
> > > >evolving into a police state.
> > >
> > > Hmm. That's true in some respects and false in
> > > others. Freedom of speech
> > > and religion and due process have all increased
> over
> > > those years. What is
> > > interesting is that much of the "sturm und
> drang"
> > > about "Asscroft" is that
> > > he's trying to remove some of the gains in due
> > > process rights for suspected
> > > terrorists THAT HAVE ONLY RECENTLY BEEN
> > > RECOGNIZED!!! In other words, 150
> > > years ago, given a similar situation, many of
> > > Ashcroft's moves wouldn't
> > > have been particularly controversial.
> >
> >Yes, there are some definitely some areas where
> there
> >is more liberty now than there was early in the
> US's
> >history. Still, I think that overall there has
> been
> >more liberty lost than gained.
>
> You may be correct. I guess the question is whether
> we've reached the
> "point of no return" (I don't think so) or whether
> we're doomed to a
> downward slide or whether we can climb back out to
> liberty. When I think
> back over what has happened over the last 40 years,
> there's a lot of reason
> for optimism. First of all, in the 50's, 60's and
> the 70's, we were
> beating down the last vestiges of organized,
> government-supported
> racism. We've swung the pendulum too far, and we're
> starting to
> correct--but I don't think we'll over-correct and
> support anything that
> smacks of government pushing down blacks (or other
> minorities).
>
> Also, during that time, we thought we were fighting
> a rearguard action
> against global Communism. Even Whittaker Chambers,
> when testifying against
> Algier Hiss, thought that eventually communism would
> win, bad as it would
> be. Now, in 2002, the remaining communists really
> aren't much more than
> pretending to be "communist" and its more of a
> question of how much longer
> the people will have to put up with it than anything
> else.
>
> While we still have a lot of "economists" who either
> ignore or think
> they've figured out a way around the principles of
> Frederic Bastiat (see
> his classic essay, "That which is seen and that
> which is not seen" at
>
"
http://www.cpm.ll.ehime-u.ac.jp/akamachomepage/akamac_e-text_links/Bastiat.html
"
>
> and follow a link, or do an internet search on
> "Bastiat".) Of course,
> those who understand Bastiat have gotten
> considerably more sophisticated as
> well. But in the 1970s, we had Nixon putting in
> wage and price controls
> and Carter trying to ration energy, while in the
> 1990s we had Bush losing
> because he raised taxes and Clinton realizing that,
> in many ways, the bond
> traders (and their confidence in the solvency of the
> US) held his
> presidency in their hands. People are learning,
> both here and worldwide
> that socialism (in any form) simply doesn't work,
> and that freedom does
> (Ok, so I'm still working on Frank on this one, but
> we've got to start
> somewhere :-> ).
>
> Bush "touched the Third Rail of American politics"
> and *didn't*
> die. "Welfare reform" worked.
>
> We've managed to avoid nationalized health care
> (except for our senior
> citizens--and not yet all of them) and we are
> getting to see the health
> care systems of the other nations buckle under the
> load of not enough
> resources, poor efficiency, higher usage, and poor
> payscales causing a
> brain drain of health-care talent.
>
> Same thing with gun control. We have Democrats
> running from it as an issue
> and Republicans (and a few Democrats) occasionally
> running against it (see
> the Dingell (pro-gun) win over Rivers (anti-gun) in
> the
> re-districting-forced Democrat primary). Not only
> that, but the cautionary
> tales are starting to come in. While our crime
> rates are going down, crime
> rates worldwide are trending up--particularly in
> places with gun control
> (like the UK, which now has twice our violent crime
> rate--although their
> murder rate hasn't increased enough to match our
> "murder with feet and
> hands" rate...yet. But I expect that by about year
> 10 (2006) they'll have
> somewhere between 2 and 3 times the murder rate they
> had at year 0
> (1996)). Meanwhile we've almost entirely flipped
> the number of states that
> didn't allow any form of concealed carry to the
> current number that are
> "Right-to-Carry" states.
>
> We're in the middle of what most Americans consider
> to be a "war", yet,
> about the worst knock against the government is that
> it is "violating the
> due process and privacy rights" of people suspected
> of being enemy
> terrorists (ok, so some people don't like the idea
> of going after other
> terrorist countries that aren't linked to 9/11 but
> they haven't
> convincingly made a link to a degradation in our
> freedom here). And a big
> part of that was a bipartisan bill that was rushed
> through without
> sufficient debate. Now, there is actually a small
> bipartisan movement to
> revisit some of that "PATRIOT Act" to pull some of
> the worst stuff
> out. Meanwhile, proposals for an intrusive
> "National ID card" fell
> flat. Gun control is *still* off the table. And
> one of the biggest issues
> in the "War on Terror" is *whether we should give
> some freedom back to the
> pilots of commercial airlines by letting them (with
> appropriate training)
> *carry guns*!!!*
>
> Public schools are slowly being pushed into a
> situation where they will
> have to either get better or go out of business
> (personally, I think
> they'll mostly get better). They're being pushed by
> both home-schooling
> and by vouchers. Meanwhile, there may be some
> technological changes coming
> which will completely put the traditional school out
> of business (over the
> next 30-50 years, of course).
>
> With the fires in the West this year, we may have
> the silver lining that
> the so-called environmentalists are finally losing
> their credibility. Of
> course, the "Spotted Owl" controversy, the "lynx
> hair" fraud, and the
> "sucker fish" idiocy have contributed (to all our
> international friends, I
> apologize for the NW focus). Once they lose their
> credibility, it becomes
> a lot easier to point out to people that the rest of
> their "sky is falling"
> rant isn't any better.
>
> I'm an optimist in many ways. But this is more than
> a question of "is the
>
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: test
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 08:02:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Goodman <robgood@monet.bestweb.net>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Just seeing if I can post from the shell (monet).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Liberty in our lifetime?
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 15:06:42 -0000
From: "justiceforfamilies" <justiceforfamilies@attbi.com>
To: libnw@immosys.com

www.freestateproject.org

The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-
oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure
there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming
state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating
directly with the federal government for appropriate political
autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and
families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the
nation and the world.

The Free State Project is a new strategy for liberty in our lifetime.

We don't want to wait decades for most citizens in the U.S. to
realize that the nanny state is an insult to their dignity. For those
of us who already understand the debilitating effects of a government
bent on reducing liberty rather than increasing it, the Free State
Project aims at liberty in a single state.

What do we mean by liberty? We believe that being free and
independent is a great way to live, and that government's only role
should be to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud.
To quote author L. Neil Smith, we believe that "no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human
being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."

What can be done in a single state? A great deal. We will repeal
state taxes and wasteful state government programs. We will end the
collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in
enforcing unconstitutional laws. We will repeal laws outlawing drugs
and guns. We will end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain.
We will privatize utilities and end inefficient regulations and
monopolies. Then we will negotiate directly with the federal
government for more autonomy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: human nature - Anarchy and real Liberty
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:52:15 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

group, frank, lowell, robert,

frank, in response to my 'annotated biblography', and in your responses to
michelle, you've written extensively about your view of 'human nature'.

uhhh, frank, may i write honestly, without claiming that it *necessarily*
applies to you? assuming my request is granted in advance i will write: we
humans necessarily look at the world through our own eyes. for whatever
reason, frank, i'm sorry that you have such a dim view.

yeah, we humans have committed horrors and atrocities nearly beyond belief
to the point that, *near* misanthrope that i am, i've very nearly come to
prefer the bonobo chimp over all other primates as god's finest creation.

and, still, frank, i'm listening to wonderful music as i write to you on my
computer from the comfort, and largely peaceful security, of my home, with a
life span much greater than my ancestors, just having eaten a meal that only
a few hundred years ago not even kings and queens could have contemplated.

the problem for me, frank, is that you write as if it is government which
created the context for the above mentioned wonders, and for those
un-mentioned. wrong, frank, as i see it! you have demand, rather
stridently, that i and michelle consult history. i now ask you to do the
same, frank, pluuze. it is under the sanction of government, with it in the
lead, that the primary horrors and atrocities have been committed. and,
yes, i know who ted bundy was. but we're talking literally millions here,
frank - *millions* and more.

you claim we 'evil' humans must have government to prevent chaos. like i
have begged you, frank, consult history. government has very nearly been
synonomous with chaos. when has any few lancer even come close??

yet, frank, i will now write that whether or not human nature is basically
evil (since the 'fall', frank?) is entirely irrelevant. both government and
market-anarchy are faced with the same human nature to deal with. the
question is how to deal with that nature both morally and practically.

whatever human nature may be, frank, basically good, basically evil, or with
either possible, i see market-anarchy as by far the most moral **and**,
also, the most practical solution - by far, not even a horserace.

before i get to that, though, frank, i want to quibble with you about an
irrelevancy, as i see it. in the u.s. we live in a sick culture, and most
of the reast of the earth is in even a worse state, and yet, frank, my
friends, my neighbors, the folks in the grocery store and on the sidewalk
are, despite your caims about human nature, very peaceful. they understand
the evil of murder, theft and fraud. they, by and large, niether sanction
such, or commit such. ted bundy got no sanction for who he was. none!!

and, yet, the same folks, my neighbors, friends, and folks in the grocery
sanctioned r. m. nixon, l.b. johnson, g.w. bush. and in other countries,
the same folks sanction such as hitler and stalin, while they would never
consider for a second killing their very own neighbor. what's the
difference, frank? as i see it, it is arguments from such as you, which
sanction government with the claim that it has interests which serve the
collective, and thus override individual morality.

at that level, frank, i find the arguments for minarchy every bit as
corrupt, though with some innocence, as the arguments which sanctioned
hitler, pol pot, and stalin - the collective good before the inalienable
rights of the individual, with government a *****necessary***** evil (to
quote you, frank). heya, frank, if you are going to argue for and sanction
a 'necessary' evil, no wonder you have such a dim view of your fellow
humans, eh?

but, frank, as i wrote, the above discussion is irrelevant, as i see it, and
i truly believe it is. you have written that you have heard and read all of
the arguments for market-anarchy. excuse me, frank, for not being as nice
as michelle by me, here, writing BULLSHIT!!!!!!!! you ain't read 'em,
frank, and you ain't heard 'em, or you did not give them the slightest open
minded consideration, you with all of the answers all ready.

why can i call "BULLSHIT" with such confidence? because you write as if
market-anarchy, repecting the mis-guided idealism as you do, requires some
kind of a change in human nature which would eliminate all propensity for
initiated agression and the need for protection for the weak against the
stronger 'predators by nature', with no need for police-forces, courts and
"state-enforced justice" (if there even is such a thing).

**that** tells me, frank, that you do not know **squat** about the arguments
for market-anarchy, nor the thought that has gone into it. and it is
exactly that **all knowing **condensension** which pissed me off so much,
and caused me to write my first communication on this subject. good gawd,
frank, do you really think i'm such a dumb-shit that i'm arguing that the
lion will lie down with the lamb, not in your heaven, but in this life??!!!!

tells me what you think of me, frank, or it tells me lots about you.

thingo is, frank, all of the thought which has gone in to market-anarchy has
been directed at how best to deal with the human propensity for initiated
agression, however widespread it may be. what is the **best** most
practical way to provide for the defense of individual rights, and provide
for the human need for justice and peace. if you think for a fucking
second, frank, that i and other market-anarchist are arguing for the day
when the lion will lie down with the lamb, AND YOU DO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE
WRITTEN IT REPEATEDLY, WELL FRANK,

I'M BIGTIME FUCKING OFFENDED THAT YOU THINK I'M SUCH A DUMB-SHIT!!!!!!!!!

wanna talk, frank?? or are you just gonna keep calling me a nuttso who
ain't thought about anything???!!!!!, arguing for an effortless heaven on
this earth, in this lifetime.

sincerely,

LF

btw, frank, david friedman, milton's son (you know him, milton i mean),
primary theoritician of market-anarchy that his is, coined the pharse
"utopia is not an option", and popularized it in lib circles. what ya think
of that, frank, arguing that we market-anarchist are hoplessly idealistic
utopians???????!!!!!!!!!!!







on 8/25/02 5:16 AM, Robert Goodman at robgood@monet.bestweb.net wrote:

>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Michelle wrote in part:
>
>>>> If any institutions
>>>> are in place that can legally initiate force, it
>>>> is
>>>> inevitable that through their use of force those
>>>> institutions will become stronger and more
>>>> powerful -
>>>
>>> Then progress would be impossible, so the statement
>>> above must be
>>> incomplete.
>>
>> You're going to have to be a little less cryptic,
>> Robert.
>
> If such institutions inevitably became stronger and more powerful, then
> nothing could be done about them. Else, what would "inevitably" mean?
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: common f----- law........
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 03:28:38 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

heyya, frank, lowell, robert,

ya'll have heard of the "common law", eh?

where the hay do ya think that wonder came from?

i figure ya ain't got the slightest of idea?

i figure you dummies oughta read the italian jurist, the most respected of
all, even by statists - bruno leone.

see, the deal was, the kings and queens of england didn't care a bit it the
commoners murdered, stole, raped or whatever, so long as the royality got
what they demanded, comes to taxes and draftees.

yup, true story!!!!!! consult history, frank!!!!!!!!

the commoners were on there own, fully, with *not* so benign neglect.
what'd they do? well, hell, they rose up and said we want no ted bundys
amoungst us. nor any other thieves, rapists or murders. with no state
***protecting*** their rights, they had to do it for themselves. the
english common law was invented by humans, in liberty, with no legislation.
none!!!!!!! just common law 'judges' selected by the community of humans,
without even a vote. true fucking story. only way ya got "elected" to
discover common law was by the selection of fellow humans based on your
reputation for justice.

good gawd, frank, lowell, robert, 'fore you call we market-anarchist utopian
nuttsos, i figure ya oughta at least study up on where the hell the "common
law" came from - it being one of the greatest achievements in human history.

market-anarchy is utopian???????? how the fuck do you think we got to where
the hell we are??? it was the human mind, with it's discovery, including
the common law. government prevented chaos????????? rotflmao!!!!!!!!!!

git over it, frank, you with an agressive gun in your hand, justifying a
"necessary" evil called government. you only git to use that gun for
defense, frank!!!!!!!! it's a "common law"!!!!!!

to quote blackstone, a common law jurist, among the best of them: "...no
human laws are of any validity if contrary to this." - claim to be free of
initiated agression.

so, frank, you lowell, and robert turn out to be government lovers, willing
to force me. i figure that means you'll show up at my cabin in the
mountains, like the fbi did for randy weaver.

so, frank, think about your shit!! government supporter that you turn out
to be, holster your gun, frank, or quit it with calling yourself a lib.

i'll defend myself from nuttsos who claim i'm a "utopian", protecting me
from my own "fallen" evil. show up at my cabin, frank, with your guns
drawn, you ain't gonna git a chance to shoot my wife. no way.

you let me live my life, my way, with no agression, or you don't. if you
show up with guns claiming i gotta support your minarchy, guns are what
you'll get in response.

hate to say it, frank, but with your arguments, you strike me as an aplogist
for the fbi and the batf.

all i ask is to be left alone to fend for myself, in common agreement with
my fellow humans. if you have another plan which takes unholsted guns,
well, christ, - sorry to find you've identified with the enemy.

good gawd, frank, holster your gun, pluuze. government, by its nature,
requires an unholstered gun. didn't know you were one of those, frank,
though you are a religious type who needs gawd or government to save ya from
evil.

well, frank, i ain't evil, but don't fuck with me 'till you have disarmed
me.

sincerely,

larry

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: just to make myself clear........frank.......
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 04:04:03 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

heyya, frank,

just in case i didn't communicate clearly, earlier, if you want me to
support your minarchy against your percieved "evil human nature", you're
gonna have to force me.

don't try it with forceing me, frank!!!!!

i just wanna be left alone to fend for myself. call me a dummie for that,
i'll pay the price. YOU DON'T GIT TO CHOOSE FOR ME FRANK, WITH YOUR
UN-HOLSTERED GUN. heyya, frank, ya only git to draw on me if i threaten
you.

I AIN'T, FRRANK. I JUST WANNA BE FREE OF YOUR GOVERNMENT. LEAVE ME ALONE,
I'LL LEAVE YOU ALONE. NEAR AS I CAN TELL, THOUGH, FRANK, YOU ARE PERFECTLY
WILLING TO FORCE ME WITH GUNS INTO YOUR VERSION OF A "MINARCHY".

GOOD GAWD, FRANK, GIT YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR RELIGIOUS ASS. GAWD OR
GOVERNMENT, YA GOTTA HAVE SOMEONE TO PROFESS ALLIGANCE TO. OKAY, DUMMIE, DO
IT, TO EACH THEIR OWN. BUT, FRANK, YOU'VE DRAWN GUNS IN YOUR FIGHT AGAINST
EVIL, AND POINTED 'EM AT ME. HEYYA, FRANK, MARKET-ANARCHIST I AM, GIT THE
GUNS OUGHTA MY FACE. I DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO THAT WAY OF WINNING AN
ARGUMENT.

WHAT YA WANT, FRANK? REASON OR GUNS. YOU PICK!!!!

LARRY

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: just to make myself clear........frank.......
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:33:39 +0800
From: Frank Reichert <admin@liberty-northwest.org>
To: libnw@immosys.com

Greetings again Larry!

larry fullmer wrote to Frank Reichert...

> GOOD GAWD, FRANK, GIT YOUR HEAD OUTTA YOUR RELIGIOUS ASS. GAWD OR
> GOVERNMENT, YA GOTTA HAVE SOMEONE TO PROFESS ALLIGANCE TO.

Incorrect, it is first and foremost necessary to recognize that:

1. Government owes IT's allegiance to the people, rather than vice
versa, and that is has a limited and clearly defined capacity to
exercise jurisdiction against aggression. Individuals, as such, are
not morally subservient to give carte blanc allegiance to any
government, particularly one that initiates aggression and force.

2. You have no historical evidence or support whatsoever in the entire
history of the earth to suggest that the absence of all government, in
some form, is anything but an idealistic "theory" or fantasy at best.

> OKAY, DUMMIE, DO
> IT, TO EACH THEIR OWN. BUT, FRANK, YOU'VE DRAWN GUNS IN YOUR FIGHT
AGAINST
> EVIL, AND POINTED 'EM AT ME.

I believe that force is absolutely necessary to confront and defend
against aggression. Whether that "force" is using firearms, is of
little consequence. It could be redressed in other ways, also using
force, and the best was is through a legitimate court system that
recognizes that aggression is morally wrong. We don't have such court
systems in place any longer today. Unfortunately, today's courts are
directed toward enforcing unjust laws, those laws that have the
propensity to aggress, e.g.: tax laws, laws regulating or restricting
non-violent human behaviour, such as smoking a joint, etc.

The answer here isn't removing all government, it is repealing about
95 percent of the laws on the books, and drastically reducing the
amount of revenue a government can get its meat hooks on! Even
Michelle seems to fall along the lines that government should not be
allowed to involuntarily tax, but could exist in some form without
forced taxation. Frankly, I don't know HOW that might work out on a
practical scale, since whoever would end up funding such a state,
would obviously control it, and what it does.

> HEYYA, FRANK, MARKET-ANARCHIST I AM, GIT THE
> GUNS OUGHTA MY FACE. I DON'T TAKE KINDLY TO THAT WAY OF WINNING AN
> ARGUMENT.

I don't know if I'm winning an argument as such, but I am not waving
guns in your face Larry. I don't care what you choose to do, that is,
unless it amounts to aggression against me, or others, which amounts
ultimately to a threat against me as well. I am certainly NOT going
to send the troops in to curtail you from making free, non-aggressive
choices. If you commit a bank robbery and thereby steal my life's
saving on deposit, then that's another story.

> WHAT YA WANT, FRANK? REASON OR GUNS. YOU PICK!!!!

Mankind does not live "reasonably", which is why guns are sometimes
necessary. In other words, it's not an issue between reason or guns.
Both are necessary. Human nature is not "reasonable", it is innate
and it is not always good either. No matter what kind of "system" you
devise, whether with an absence of government, or a bunch of goon
squads running around protecting individual rights, or even aggressive
war lords seeking to loot, rape, and control, you're going to have
include human nature into that equation. You're rather evasive it
seems to me on how you are going to deal with that.

Problem is that anarchy is a theory such as marxism is a theory. It
assumes "reason" in somehow in control over human nature, and as such
it has little to do with practical applications for any society which
is made up of human beings. Marxism was built around various
sociological utopian ideals, none of which ever came to pass once such
a system took control and power, such as, that government would
increasing wither away and become unnecessary. No marxist state ever
existed in which government did not grow exponentially and assume
control over every aspect of human activity. Marxism also was built
upon the notion of economic equality, and universal prosperity.
Again, no marxist state ever was able to bring about such utopian
expectation, and the reverse was always the result in practical
comparisons with more free market economies.

Evidence suggests that even pre-recorded history necessitated the
existence of government, in that case grouped around tribal leaders,
councils, or elders. In some cases sociological studies reveal that
even territorial boundaries weren't required to define such a
government's jurisdiction, e.g., wandering, nomadic tribes moving from
place to place. In any case however, they had a means for common
defence against external aggression, and settling disputes among
themselves.

If you cannot see the similarities here with what you propose in a
free association of forming alliances, then you entirely miss the
point. That too ultimately requires the existence of some form of
government. In fact, what you may be proposing is nothing more
perhaps than just that, a self-governing tribe of individuals
appropriating security measures to defend the alliance. And in such
an alliance, YOU, as an individual are only ONE VOICE in determining
how such arrangements will be made, and how such will be financed.

Your idea of living alone on a mountain top defending yourself won't
work very long either, as Randy Weaver and family finally found out.
A larger bully with aggression on his mind will take you out, as in
the later case, the US government did against the Weaver family.

Kindest regards,
Frank

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: which is it, frank??....
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:32:17 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

hello, frank,

thanks for responding. my response is interspersed below:

on 8/27/02 7:33 PM, Frank Reichert at admin@liberty-northwest.org wrote:

> 1. Government owes IT's allegiance to the people, rather than vice
> versa, and that is has a limited and clearly defined capacity to
> exercise jurisdiction against aggression. Individuals, as such, are
> not morally subservient to give carte blanc allegiance to any
> government, particularly one that initiates aggression and force.

well, frank, i sorta liked what you wrote, 'cept that, from my frame of
reference, it appears that you have not yet thought real clearly about the
fundamentals of the question. let me put it this way: as a market-anarchist
i give *no* allegance, carte blanch or not, to *any* government. now, you
might figure i'm a nuttso (and you will, though i do hope to change your
mind) for my lack of allegiance even to some, yet fictional, minarchy, but,
be that as it may, there is not the slightest hint of aggression in my lack
of allegiance. so, frank, what are you and your minarchy gonna do with me?
are you gonna force my allegiance, or are you gonna let me go my own
non-agressive way, maybe hiring a private security agency who i might figure
will defend me better than your minarchy? are you gonna let me do that,
frank? if so, i figure you're a market anarchist already. if your not
gonna do that, if you and your minarchy intend to force my allegiance and
prevent me from making other contracts, you are obligated to justify the
force you will use to gurantee the geographical monopoly of your minarchy.

government, as i see it frank, by definition, claims a geographic monopoly
on all of those humans who live within its arbitrary borders, allegiance or
not. if even one individual human within its boundaries does not grant
allegiance, that allegiance must be *forced* with the use of initiated
physical agression, or the threat of it. that seems to be clearly the case,
frank, unless you are at least willing to grant sanction to competeing
"governments" within the same geographical area. and how can you not
sanction that, frank, if allegiance is something an individual human has a
right to non-agressively choose? if humans have a right to cast their
allegiance to the non-agressive "government" of their choice, how do you
distinguish that from a voluntary contract in the market? you are obligated
to explain to me, frank, why individual humans do not have that right, it
seems to me. short an explanation from you, frank, i figure you're a market
anarchist all ready, you just haven't realized it yet.

as you intimated above, government is formed, and derives it's power and
allegiance from the people. to quote you: "IT owes its allegiance to the
people". now, reading you, i can read people as a collective, with no
individual rights, with the "people" meaning the group. which people are
you writing about, frank? Me? i'm no "people". i make my own contracts,
thank you very much. are you going to let me do that frank? if you are
willing to let me "opt out" of *your* minarchy, you are a market anarchist.
if you are not, i find you to be a statist wolf in libertarian sheep's
clothing - willing to force me to choose as you have. which is it, frank???

it's that simple, frank!!, and that complex. which is it??!!

>
> 2. You have no historical evidence or support whatsoever in the entire
> history of the earth to suggest that the absence of all government, in
> some form, is anything but an idealistic "theory" or fantasy at best.

the argument from history, eh? criminee, frank, that is an entirely beside
the point argument. i can hear you saying to the first humans trying to
start their own fire, rather than capture litning, that there is no evidence
in history that such can be done. and i can hear you arguing with the
american revolutionists that the is little evidence in history that humans
can get along without kings. with your arguments from history, frank, all i
have to say is 'thank gawd you ain't been in charge of human progress" -
there'd have been none, given that bullshit argument. gotta say though,
it's you who needs to consult history, not me. obviously you are unaware of
the hundreds of years in which iceland developed non-government ways to deal
with aggression and dispute resolution, peacefully. and so far you have
given no respect to the non-government discovery of english common law!!
nor have you shown the slightest respect to the Iriquoi, and other native
americans, some of whom were t. jefferson's model of how to have a
government without truly having one. there's lots in history you've not
consulted, as i see it. me? i don't give a crap about history, except to
learn from it.

WHERE THE HELL IN HISTORY, FRANK, HAS THERE BEEN A FUNCTIONG MINARCHY WHICH
AS SECURED THE RIGHTS OF 'THE PEOPLE'??????

if history is your thingo, frank, i have a helluva lot more evidence than
you do. a helluva a lot!! to quote marvin, in a way i figure he didn't
intend: 'the idea of government is broken, and it can't be fixed'. consult
history, frank!!

> I believe that force is absolutely necessary to confront and defend
> against aggression. Whether that "force" is using firearms, is of
> little consequence. It could be redressed in other ways, also using
> force, and the best was is through a legitimate court system that
> recognizes that aggression is morally wrong. We don't have such court
> systems in place any longer today.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN, FRANK, WITH 'ANY LONGER'! WHEN THE HELL DID 'WE'
HAVE THAT?? i find you real damn prone to use **collective** terms, that's
why i wrote you not long ago inquiring if you have a mouse in you pocket.
who is "we", frank?? collective terms hopelessly confuse the thinking of an
individualist, as i see it. don't try it with putting me in your pocket,
frank. i ain't no "we". and niether were blacks, native americans, women,
nor lots of others. what the hell ya mean with, "any longer"??????!!!!!!!
just 'cause ""we"" got rid of kings, doesn't mean ""we"" got the job done.
good gawd, with so much to do, folks like you harken back to the good old
days which are "no longer" here. criminee, you talk like some kind of a
conservative with nothing left to conserve, not that there ever was. in
human history, liberty is a damn new idea!! it needs your help with
furthering, frank. conservatively harkening back to the good old days which
never even existed ain't help. you ain't even got history on your side.

> Unfortunately, today's courts are
> directed toward enforcing unjust laws, those laws that have the
> propensity to aggress, e.g.: tax laws, laws regulating or restricting
> non-violent human behaviour, such as smoking a joint, etc.

heyya, frank, read yourself, above!! without taxes, how the hell do you
intend to pay for **your** government roads?? frank, i love ya, but you
ain't real anilitical are ya?? (and i ain't a real good speller).

and, yaaaa, today's courts, far beyond that, enforce allegiance, as i figure
you do, 'till you tell me otherwise. if you're gonna force government on me
frank, non-violent that i am, why the heck are you so worried about the best
example in history of a minarchy tellin' me what i can smoke??

> The answer here isn't removing all government, it is repealing about
> 95 percent of the laws on the books, and drastically reducing the
> amount of revenue a government can get its meat hooks on!

if you and your minarchy take one f------ penney from me frank, it'll take
the meat hooks of violence, sanctioned by you. do you really wanna send the
government to my door to force me to pay for **your** decisions. like i
wrote you, frank, you have a gun in your hand, or at least your selected
minarchy does, and that implicates you. put your gun back in the holster,
frank. you've **no** excuse to use it on me, nor does your minarchy.

> Michelle seems to fall along the lines that government should not be
> allowed to involuntarily tax, but could exist in some form without
> forced taxation. Frankly, I don't know HOW that might work out on a
> practical scale, since whoever would end up funding such a state,
> would obviously control it, and what it does.

heyya, frank, when you buy a burger from mcdonalds, you excercise control.
mcdonalds couldn't exist without your free, voluntary choice. you, frank,
and others who so choose, control what mcdonalds does. i have no problem
with that, just don't go with forcing michelle to eat there, 'cause she's a
veggie.

FRANK, AS I SEE IT, IT IS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT **NOT TO FUND** THAT WILL
SAVE LIBERTY, IF IT CAN BE SAVED. YOU DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOUR FELLOW HUMANS
THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE FOR THEMSELVES 'CAUSE YOU FIGURE THEY WOULD CHOOSE
DIFFERENTLY FROM YOU, AND "THEY'D HAVE CONTROL". I RESERVE THE RIGHT, AS A
HUMAN, WITH INALIENALBE RIGHTS, TO FUND WHAT I CHOOSE TO. IF YOU THINK THAT
MAKES ME A CONTROL FREAK, YOU DAMN WELL OUGHTA TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELF, SO
WORRIED ABOUT CONTROL, THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO FORCE ME TO CHOOSE AS YOU.

> I don't know if I'm winning an argument as such, but I am not waving
> guns in your face Larry.

the hell you're not, frank!! as mao said, government's power grows out of
the barrel of a gun. and that is true about the gun you sanction for
minarchy. holster your gun, frank, or check it at the door.

> Mankind does not live "reasonably", which is why guns are sometimes
> necessary. In other words, it's not an issue between reason or guns.
> Both are necessary. Human nature is not "reasonable", it is innate
> and it is not always good either. No matter what kind of "system" you
> devise, whether with an absence of government, or a bunch of goon
> squads running around protecting individual rights, or even aggressive
> war lords seeking to loot, rape, and control, you're going to have
> include human nature into that equation. You're rather evasive it
> seems to me on how you are going to deal with that.

i ain't been evasive at all, frank. you just peed me off when you, early
on, accused me of supporting goon squads and war lords, when you support the
broken idea of government, aiming your support for it at me, with your gun
out of the holster.
>
> Problem is that anarchy is a theory such as marxism is a theory.

bullshit!! marxism has not the slightest relevance to market anarchy. in
fact they are polar opposites. i understand why you write that, because the
sucess of marxism required a change in human nature. lump me in with that
marxist crap, frank, you pee me off bigtime, but i guess i already wrote
that.

the real "theory" here, frank, is your "theory" of minarchy. you're much
more of a morxist than i, figuring the state can be salvaged, given the
history.

> It
> assumes "reason" in somehow in control over human nature, and as such
> it has little to do with practical applications for any society which
> is made up of human beings.

heyya, frank, reason is **all** we humans have. or guns. you got a gun in
your hand, frank, with your support of minarchy. no damn wonder you
disparge reason.

so, frank, you wrote me with an epistle about the failure of marxism. i
figure it's you who needs to read that, not me. i'm trying real damn hard
not to be offended by you telling me why marxism failed. why the hell ya
think i need to read that, unless you figure i'm an irrational utopian,
while it is you who supports the utopian idea of a government which is not
agressive.

<snip>

> In any case however, they had a means for common
> defence against external aggression, and settling disputes among
> themselves.

good gawd, frank, there ya go again, claiming, with not even asking, that i
believe we humans need no mechanism for settling disputes. git over that,
frank, or piss me off bigtime. i might be wrong about how disputes can be
settled witout the agressive force of government, but if you write me one
more damn time indicating that i'm arguing for a utopia where there will be
no human disputes i tell ya to fuck of, disputing you.
>
> If you cannot see the similarities here with what you propose in a
> free association of forming alliances, then you entirely miss the
> point. That too ultimately requires the existence of some form of
> government. In fact, what you may be proposing is nothing more
> perhaps than just that, a self-governing tribe of individuals
> appropriating security measures to defend the alliance. And in such
> an alliance, YOU, as an individual are only ONE VOICE in determining
> how such arrangements will be made, and how such will be financed.

I'M ONLY ONE VOICE, EH?? WELL, YAAA. I AIN'T NO "WE". gotta say, though,
frank, you only have one voice, too. I REFUSE TO LET YOU SPEAK FOR ME UNLESS
WE REACH VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.

"only one voice", eh. hell, i though the value of the one voice was what
libertarianism was all about!! how many voices do you have, frank, in your
minarchy, assuming it will do your biding. DON'T GO SPEAKING FOR ME, FRANK,
EVER, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF MY "ONE VOICE".
>
> Your idea of living alone on a mountain top defending yourself won't
> work very long either, as Randy Weaver and family finally found out.
> A larger bully with aggression on his mind will take you out, as in
> the later case, the US government did against the Weaver family.

GOOD GAWD, FRANK, I AIN'T TALKING ABOUT DEFENDING MYSELF. CRIMINEE, I DON'T
EVEN KNOW HOW TO MAKE MY OWN SHOES, AND JUSTICE IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT TO ME
THAN SHOES. DO YOU VALUE SHOES OVER JUSTICE, FRANK? THE SUPPLY WILL ALWAYS
ARISE TO MEET THE DEMAND ON THE MARKET. WHAT DO YOU VALUE, FRANK, AND WHY
THE HELL DO YOU CONCLUDE THAT EVIL CAN SO EASILY OUT-BID YOU WITHOUT THE
SANCTION OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH EVEN YOU GRANT????

GOOD GAWD, FRANK, JUST AS A THOUGH EXPERIMENT, CONSIDER WHAT SHAPE THE WAR
AGAINST HUMANS WHO USE DRUGS WOULD BE IN IF THOSE WHO WANTED TO RUN THE
LIVES OF OTHERS HAD TO FUND THE WAR WITH VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, TAXES
BEING AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW????????? ASSHOLES AIN'T GOT THE MONEY, FRANK,
UNLESS YOU FIGURE EVERYBODY BUT YOU IS AN ASSHOLE OUT TO GIT YA.
>
> Kindest regards,
> Frank

THE STATE, MINARCHY OR NOT, IS ORGANIZED VIOLENCE. WITHOUT THE SANCTIONED
ORGANIZATION, ALL YA GOT IS A BUNCH OF FREE LANCERS. THEY'RE VASTLY
OUTNUMBERED. VASTLY!! UNLESS YOUR VERY OWN EYES, AND MIND, THINKING WHAT
YOU WOULD DO WITH NO STATE, TELLS YOU DIFFERENTLY.

THINK ABOUT IT FRANK, PLUUZE.

SORRY FOR THE CAPS. I HIT THE KEY AWHILE BACK AND GOT LAZY.

SINCERELY,

LARRY

>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> LIBERTY NORTHWEST ACCOUNT MANAGER
>
> To subscribe: libnw-subscribe@immosys.com
> To unsubscribe: libnw-unsubscribe@immosys.com
> Other commands: libnw-info@immosys.com
> Admin matters: moderator@liberty-northwest.org
>
> URLs for Liberty Northwest:
> Archives and Polls: http://www.yahoogroups.com/community/libnw
> Liberty Northwest Main Page: http://www.liberty-northwest.org
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: i ain't no mouse, frank..........
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:50:04 -0700
From: larry fullmer <lfullmer1@cableone.net>
To: <libnw@immosys.com>

frank,

i've written you about this several times before, and i just did, again,
earlier tonight.

quit it with your use of collective terminology like "we" and "us". it's
appropriate *sometimes*, but it sure as hell isn't when a lib. is discussing
minarchy, or the actions of the shrub (tm).

my name is larry, frank. I AIN'T NO DAMNED 'WE', NOT IN YOUR POCKET, OR IN
THE POCKET OF THE 'WE' YOU USE TO REFER TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

IF YOU CALL ME "WE" AGAIN, FRANK, BELIEVE ME, I'LL REMIND YA I AIN'T SUCH!!

K???

LF