AOPA AND DALEY

Dear TLE,

When an associate of mine who is a "private" pilot told me of the
bulldozing of Chicago's "private" airfield, my first reaction was
certainly not surprise, not with how Chicago government treats
"private" gun ownership. It seemed perfectly appropriate
considering Mayor Daley's attitude toward anything "private".

But the pictures at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association are
remarkable: http://www.aopa.org/>

I then mentioned to him that it is too bad it's not private property, at
least then the owner could prosecute the city. Being city property, I
didn't think the pilots have much room to object.

"The expropriation of every airport and field that I know of", I
continued, "by local governments, only reinforces my opinion of
government in general."

He corrected me at this point. Every formerly-private airfield that he
knows of was actually voluntarily given over to government ownership and
control based on the private owners not being able to pay the bills to keep
them open. He decried that it's a good thing that "government"
stepped in to save these airfields and keep them open. This, it seems, is
his reason for not being Libertarian: He likes his taxpayer subsidized
airfields.

So the "private" pilots who got into bed with government to keep
their favorite sport available at below-market prices are now upset that
their lover is fickle. Awwwww... tisk tisk tisk.

Still, the pictures are amazing.

Curt Howland [Howland{at}Priss.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

LIBERTARIAN SF

I quite liked Fran Van Cleave's article about "Blacklist or
Bias?" http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe218-20030407-07.html>.
I have a few comments of my own, since I go to a lot of SF cons, and often,
as a published writer, find myself going over other people's manuscripts.

Firstly, a lot of libertarian SF suffers from a bad case of too much
influence from Ayn Rand.  Now, my philosophical backbone is as Randite as
it comes, but I am not blind to the woman's faults as a fiction writer. 
Her characters will stop the action for long speeches to drive home a
philosophical point, to the point that a book with just
the speeches in it is available.  A common
fault among any SF writers is the "infodump," or the "As you
know, Bob" speech -- Rand's influence on a beginning writer can
exacerbate this fault, particularly in a novel written partly to advance a
particular viewpoint. Open polemics will often turn readers off. Brian
Daley's "Alacrity Fitzhugh/Hobart Floyt" trilogy handled its
libertarian themes remarkably well, I thought -- it's a shame his work
isn't more widely known.

Secondly, a lot of times a libertarian writer will fall victim to the
temptation of making his villains (all of them government bureaucrats or
other familiar hate-objects) bumbling idiots.  Admittedly, they often do
make mistakes in real life, but overdoing this merely annoys and turns off
a lot of readers who are not libertarians -- and they are, like it or not,
in the majority in the general SF market.

On a related note, making the Bad Guys conscious
villains, snickering evilly about how "we will
control-l-l everybody!" does not make for a good
story, in most cases. (I've always thought that _Dune,_ an admitted
masterpiece, would have been a far better story had Baron Harkonnen not
been loaded down with almost comic-book-level villainy, but instead had
been portrayed as a decent, likable guy who was caught up in this feud with
the Atreides through no fault of his own.)

There have been successfully published stories, and good stories, with both
of the above flaws.  However, for a beginning writer, competing against
established pros, to lumber himself with flaws that aren't necessary is to
accept an unnecessary handicap.

Eric Oppen [oppen{at}mycns.net]

* * * * * * * * * * *

Re:  ATTENTION LIBERTARIAN WRITERS
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe216-20030324-02.html>

I've been catching up on some recent TLE issues & read your article
about publishers.  Have you looked into http://www.iuniverse.com>? I
purchased (through Amazon) a book from them and it was done very well.  I
don't know much (OK, anything) about the book business but their setup
costs don't seem to be outrageous.  Could be worth checking out, in any
case.

Jeff Pitblado [jeff{at}pitblado.us]

* * * * * * * * * * *

SUPPORT THE U.N., EH?

The Canadian government has always embraced the notion that they are
morally superior to most governmental bodies, especially the United States.
One recent example lays this fallacy to rest.

According to Scott Weinberg, of the Virginia-based Population Research
Institute, during the 1990s, over 200,000 women in Peru were forcibly
sterilized with the help of the UN Population Fund, to which the Canadian
government has contributed millions of confiscated tax dollars.

This type of brutality makes me want to salute the flag---not!

Dave Maharaj [cougar{at}echo-on.net]

* * * * * * * * * * *

ON THE MORALITY OF SCAVENGING

I have noticed an unfortunate tendency among otherwise reasonable
Libertarians to disparage to practice of scavenging or 'dumpster diving'.
Those who engage in it are referred to as best as 'disgusting' and as worst
as 'criminals'. Those who claim to be advocates of freedom would have this
practice outlawed on a number of pretexts such as:

1. Some people look through trash in order to find documents with which to
commit credit card fraud. However, there are already laws against fraud.
Banning someone from going through the trash because they 'might' commit
such a crime is precisely the same reasoning that is used to ban guns,
because they 'might' be used to commit a crime.

2. People scavenging in the trash runs the risk of becoming injured or ill
by doing so. However, people have the right to take what sort of risks they
want with themselves.

3. I don't want people looking at my private garbage. However, your garbage
is not private. Once you have taken an active step in abandoning your
property, it is no longer yours. You have no more rights regarding it. Nor
do you have any responsibilities, this is a good thing, otherwise you could
find yourself liable if someone hurts themselves on the broken window of
your old car that you towed to the junkyard five years ago.

The real reason people dislike scavengers, and one they will not admit to,
is that they do not like to see someone getting something for nothing. It
is a fact that on rare occassions, for very brief periods of time, measured
in minutes, dumpster diving can pay nearly $5,000 an hour. However, people
who are willing to perform distasteful tasks (such as prostitution) have
always been well compensated for doing so.

One should bear in mind that what scavengers do not only benefits them, but
also the people they scavenge from, for several reasons. We live on a
finite planet, with a finite amount of land and resources. Every molecule
of every object thrown in the trash is a molecule that somebody needed for
something at one time, and that almost certainly will be needed by somebody
else at some point in the future. Scavengers are a neccessity in our
ecology, if they did not exist all the nutrients in the world would be tied
up in the un-decaying bodies of creatures that died millions of years ago,
making life impossible
today. Large numbers of efficient scavengers working on several levels make
life possible for greater numbers of other organisms by recycling organic
molecules as fast as possible.

This process is beneficial to our economy as well. We need large amounts of
materials to support our technological civilization. People who re-use old
items decrease this demand, which lowers the price of new items for
everyone else. Once an item is no longer usable, there are those who will
sell it for scrap, increasing the amount of materials availiable for
everyone.

This process has been going on for thousands of years, and has not been
looked down on until very recently. Even in the Bible, there were poor
people who 'gleaned' the fields of the rich of leftover grain that wasn't
worth the bother to a rich landowner to go out and collect himself. And
this was actually to the benefit of the farmer, by allowing these people to
feed themselves rather than starve, it increased the number of people in a
small tribe when there was a real problem with sufficient genetic
diversity, and keeping the population large enough to fight off competing
tribes.

Of course, your other alternative is to 'crack down' on those filthy
dumpster divers, at the behest of the parasites working for the government,
whom most people seem to prefer because they wear three peice suits and
don't have dirty fingernails. In which case you will find yourself paying
said parasites more taxes immediately for additional landfill space, which
will only go up in price, since there is only a finite amount of land
availiable for it. And in the long run, your grandchildren will most likely
pay additional taxes for government programs to 'reclaim' all the materials
buried in landfills, when we start running out of things like copper and
plastic.

Free market scavengers or taxpayer subsidized garbage disposal and
recycling. It's your choice.

Ann Morgan [septithol{at}yahoo.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

INTOLERANCE AND THE LIBERTARIAN MINDSET

Hi J.C.,

Periodically, I read here in TLE and elsewhere how some people aren't pure
enough to be Libertarians, that they have to take an all or nothing
approach to the tao of our chosen beliefs.  That is a lot of bullshit. 
That the system is broken is a given that most any citizen will readily
admit.  That the system is unfairly weighted in favor of Statism is also a
given.  That there is room for improvement here is obvious.

I'll be gawd-damned if I'll sit here behind my screen (which I have less
time to do every day) and watch some Monday morning Libertarian call a guy
out for a gunfight just because he disagrees with him. Disagreement is what
Libertarianism is all about.  Hell, if Neil became president tomorrow, I'd
disagree with him on principle. Because I have the freedom to, Neil would
defend my right to do so, and all of you peckerheads should too.

It's a shame that the only way some of these kids can get published in an
Internet magazine is to make an outrageous statement, insult the guy (or
girl) they're responding to, and create a tempest in a teapot. God knows
Bob Heinlein got published without such histrionics.

I've watched the war for oil on TV, and it's maddening to see what's
happening on both sides.  Bush aggressed against an apparent tyrant, who
had such a tight grip on his citizens they couldn't possibly beat him
without help.  Bush HAS killed innocent people, violating Iraq's national
sovranty to do so.  The so-called United Nations can't even agree to wipe
their own butts, let alone state their disagreement with one voice. If you
doubt for a minute that Saddam was a Hitler in training, then I am wasting
my time with this letter.  It's a big mess.

The unasked question should really be (unasked by everyone but Aaron
Zelman) when will the UN take the USgov's WMD'S? Or my rifle?   Or yours? 
My dad and I never agreed on a lot, but he had a saying that works better
now than ever. "Keep your eye upon the donut, not upon the hole."
 Internecine fighting makes all of us weak, so agree to disagree and roll
on. On a lighter note, I am happy to oblige anyone for a turn around the
Field of Honor, paintball at 50 paces.

Peace out,
Jack Jerome [paratime98{at}yahoo.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

POLL BASED DEMOCRACY

Re: Caleb Paul's article ("The War on Iraq: Hegemony or Freedom?")
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe217-20030331-06.html>

I believe as you do that democracy, while far better than any other system
in existance, is basically a tyranny of the masses.  However, you make the
same mistake that many others have made concerning the war in Iraq. 
Politicians are not hired (elected) to then simply follow popular polls to
decide what to do (Bill Clinton being the biggest exception to this). 
Politicians are hired because a majority of those that voted agreed (more
or less) with the politicians stands and beliefs and the people feel
comfortable with that person running things for them (I don't justify or
condone any of this, simply
setting context).  In fact I believe that was one of the reasons Senators
were originally chosen by state legislatures, to keep one part of the
government relatively immune from "popular" influences. Now, if
you really want to see a "Tyranny of the Masses" then just govern
based on popular polls.  Polling is to subject to "knee-jerk"
effects and can be far too easily manipulated through using just the right
questions to be of very much use as a tool to govern.  This would create
such a massive "Roller-Coaster Effect" that our current
democratic tyranny would seem like heaven. Politicians that really are
doing "what they believe in" should not pay any attention to
polls, rather they should pay attention to the promises they made to their
constituents and, in our system, to their oaths of office.

Once again, I am not supporting or condoning anything about our current
system, that's not the purpose of my letter. I'm just saying that a poll
driven democracy would be a terrible nightmare and polls are no good reason
to criticize the decisions of a politician.

Bob Compono [bob{at}compono.org]

* * * * * * * * * * *

PAUL V BARNETT (ROUND 4)

I have enjoyed this debate about education with Mr Barnett, and I believe
in many respects that there was something of a misunderstanding on my part.
Still though, I think there are certain points I disagree with him on.

In a way, he is right that I am oversimplistic in my assessment of the
dumbing down of education and that I ignored certain other factors, but I
think one has to be careful not to read too much into these. It is true
that the catchcry of learning disabilities and doping of kids is a solution
used to suppress those who would rebel, but these can have as much to do
with influences outside the school (such as factors in the home) as
anything else (or at least one needs to do a fairly thorough study of it
all). Also, I believe that ultimately, they're part of the greater problem,
and not necessarily distinct from it, nor are they the cause of it per se.
It's hard to
say, but I think it's easy to get so distracted by these issues as to lose
track of the main problem regarding the education itself. I'm not entirely
sure as I don't know enough about all the evidence for either argument, so
I am willing to concede this point to Mr Barnett.

I also take Mr Barnett's points about ethics. I don't think the state
should be responsible for instilling ethics as such (and I thank him for
pointing that out to me again), but I do think that ethics in the context
of philosophy courses (such as one comparing, Aristotle, Mill, Locke, Kant,
etc.), or perhaps in a broader context of critical thinking should be a
part of learning. It's hard to argue this at all, since I don't think the
state should be responsible for any education. However, if it were, I think
critical thinking should be a part of education.

Then again, I think that would be particularly difficult, since inevitably,
some sort of quasi-utilitarian/socialistic principles would be favoured.
It's hard to imagine the education system taking an objective stance.

It takes me back to my final year of high school in English where we had to
deal with an issue in the media. I did mine on the fact that the Australian
government had buckled to Zionist pressure groups and denied a visa to an
anti-semitic revisionist historian. My whole essay hinged on the fact that
a) we should let him in on the grounds of free speech, and b) by banning
him, we'd actually given him more attention anyway, since few people knew
of him beforehand. Never the less, because I didn't tow the left wing,
politically correct line, I got not only a pasting from the left wing
English department (it must have been the only thing that was left wing in
our school), but also
the external markers. I am pretty sure it wasn't because of my skills and
so on, because I got an A and two A pluses on my other pieces of
work/exams.

So, maybe critical thinking shouldn't be taught. Then again though, is
anything in the curriculum value free? Almost everything goes out the
window if put under that spot light. I suppose that gets us neatly to the
point that the state shouldn't be responsible for education.

Overall, I think I am in agreement with Mr Barnett, and his points have
been well taken. However, there is one point I have problems with, and it
seems like a point often towed by libertarians that I would like someone
(anyone) to address for me.

Mr Barnett wrote: "But since today's generation of lower-class and
middle-class parents are forced out of the home and back into the workplace
and are unable to spend time with their children while instilling values
into them, it's no wonder that kids have no appreciation for the value of
their jobs they have, nor do they have respect for others."

Perhaps my experiences are just unusual. From when I was very young, both
my parents (who at that point were not even comfortable) worked very hard.
They put all of their efforts into paying a mortgage and private school
fees. When I was twelve, my father started his own business, and it was
nothing for him to work 80-100 hours a week. Thus, for most of my
adolescence, I hardly saw him. My mother worked just as hard in her job and
at home.

However, somehow, my parents always made time to go to school concerts, to
help us with homework and assignments, and to spend time with us.

Whilst we didn't go on any flash holidays or have the latest fashions, my
parents gave us more than most kids. (As an aside, perhaps the fact that
parents have to work so hard is because they so desperately have to feed
the consumeristic beast for a constant procession of useless, meaningless
and obsolete goods. Just a thought.)

Looking back now, I don't know how my parents did it. They must have
sacrificed all of themselves for us.

What stands out most in my mind is that somewhere in amongst all of that,
my father, despite not having a formal education himself (although he is
widely read), took a very active role in talking to me and my sister about
things. Whilst this led to some very intense political and religious
discussions (and still does), at the end of the day, we manage(d) to have a
family where four radically different views on politics and religion all
co-exist. I don't think that happened just by chance.

I thought that was the norm, but many of my friends, whose parents didn't
work nearly as hard as my parents, were amazed that my father and I have
always had such intense discussions. I can't understand how their parents
didn't (and don't) have such discussions with them.

I think the whole claim put forward that parents don't have time to raise
their kids because they are too busy working is rubbish. I'm not absolving
the government here, but I think that's another point entirely. I think
it's a big copout from a lot of parents who just don't put the time in with
their kids because they are simply self-indulgent. I'm not ready to have
kids any time soon. Aside from the minor detail of a lack of a partner,
they would put a serious curb on my current lifestyle. If and when I do
have them though, I will want to make sure that I'm committed. I think
people need to weigh that up before they have kids. If you can't put 110%
into your kids, don't have them. Don't blame others for your shortcomings
though.

That having been said, I've looked forward to every installment in this
debate and it's been enlightening. I agree with Mr Barnett that going for a
free market system is the best solution to society's ills, and not just in
education. I hope we can work towards that.
 
In Liberty,
Caleb Paul [shorbe{at}rocketmail.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

FREEPAKISTAN NEWSLETTER # 1
A Link to Libertarian Activism in Pakistan
[April 11, 2003]

Contents:
- A Perspective on Free-Market Economy
- A Lesson from the Third World: The Extraordinary Success of Private
    Education in Africa and India
- Urdu Translation of The Adventures of Jonathan Gullible:
    A Free-Market Odyssey
- FreePakistan News Briefs

FreePakistan exists for the promotion of Libertarian principles and values
such as individual freedom, private property, market economy, limited
constitutional government, and the rule of law. Its vision is a free and
prosperous Pakistan; for only such a Pakistan can contribute positively to
the creation of a free and prosperous world. To this end, FreePakistan not
only highlights the activities of Libertarians in Pakistan, but also
co-ordinates their work with that of Libertarians abroad.

Subscribe: 
Unsubscribe: 

FreePakistan welcome your comments and contributions
Contact at: 

FreePakistan Newsletter links:
http://bureaucrash.com/about/links.shtml>
http://www.jonathangullible.com/projects.htm>

Edited and prepared by
Khalil Ahmad
Lahore Pakistan
Email: khalilkf{at}hotmail.com

* * * * * * * * * * *

TICK TICK TICK

Are you willing to sell your soul to the devil?

Have you ever glanced through Nostradamus? Particularly, Quatrain 24:
"Beasts ferocious from hunger will swim across rivers: The greater
part of the region will be against the Hister, The great one will cause it
to be dragged in an iron cage, When the German child will observe
nothing."

Have you ever glanced through the Bible? Particularly, Revelation 13:16-17,
"And it puts under compulsion all persons, the small and the great,
and the rich and the poor, and the free and the slaves, that they should
give these a mark in their right hand or upon their forehead, and that
nobody might be able to buy or sell except a person having the mark."

Have you been paying any attention to current events? Particularly, those
cute little items, cunningly tucked away in our beloved GEheime STAat
POlizei's (homeland "security") ludicrously-named
"PATRIOT" Acts, ticking time bombs set to go off in 2005 and
2007: In 2005, you'll be required to register (and pay) for the Commercial
Driver's Biometric Identity Card, a move cleverly positioned to act as a
referendum on the 2007 requirement to have a micro-miniaturized computer
chip implanted by your wrist, in order to legally drive a Commercial
Vehicle.

If our erstwhile "defenders," the federal Gestapo, can ram this
stinking abomination against liberty down the throats of the compliant
sheep, then disarmament and genocide are a mere blink away. First the truck
drivers, then the welfare mothers. Soon, you.

"I won't do it," you protest, "and that nobody might be able
to buy or sell except a person having the mark." Really? Is your check
direct-deposited? What are you going to do when "government,"
through the unconstitutional IRS, says, "You can't submit paperwork
without the mark," or, "banks must accept only the mark as a
legal I. D." After your entire life, now they ask that you prove
you're a citizen to apply for a job. Next, you'll have to have the mark.
Got a
license, permit, or other "official" sanction? Not without the
mark! Supermarkets and department stores will happily jump on the
bandwagon: "sorry, not without the mark." Who ya gonna call?

Nostradamus was only one letter off about Hitler. You plan on waiting until
the jackbooted, Nazi-helmeted, German machinegun-toting, masked
"government" thugs demand you take the mark, or are you finally
going to wake up to the fact that this ain't Kansas no more, Dorothy.

Historically, the most dangerous thing for any citizen is his own
"government." The "governments" of Armenia, Cambodia,
China, Guatemala, Jamaica, National Socialist Germany, Russia, Rwanda,
South Africa, Turkey, Uganda, and Zimbabwe have happily murdered over one
hundred seventy-one million of their own compliant citizens in the
twentieth century alone. Does this bode well for you from, say, a
statistical standpoint?

"I'll never let them do that to me, or my family!" Yeah, yeah,
yeah, I heard the same baloney from the MOVE members in Philadelphia in
1985, from Randy Weaver in 1992, from David Koresh in 1993 and from poor
Elian in 2000. Out of the bunch of them, both Randy and Elian are still
alive - but not for "government's lack of trying! The only way to beat
ever-growing "government" tyranny is the reasonable method
espoused many moons ago by brilliant and practical Benjamin Franklin:
"We must all hang together or most assuredly, we shall all hang
separately!"

As much as its politically correct to bash the messengers, the "dead
white guys," it in no way diminishes the truth of the message. Seeing
as you're not to much on that "looking into the future" thing,
kindly allow me to do a Jean Dixon for you:  I'm going to bet that, just
like pastor Martin Neimoller before you, you're simply going to wait until
the grinning death's-heads show up at your tidy front door some fine
morning - at about three A. M. - and cart you off to your new home in one
of FEMA's many localized abodes before they ultimately decide to send you
to the Amtrak repair facility in Indianapolis for
"processing," but you'll be humored to realize that your final
"shower" is being administered by U. N. troops from Germany
before your final trip to the crematorium at Mount Franklin in Texas.

Everything's all prepared, including the unconstitutional "executive
orders" -they're just waiting for you, but relax: we all know that
thing like that can't happen in a civilized nation like (fill in the blank
- choose from the list above) - in spite of the overwhelming weight of
historical evidence to the contrary.

Unlike other revolutions, the Founders already had it made - but gave it
all up for you. Do you deserve it?

My advice is to dust off your history book and look up king Leonidas - and
learn how to say, "Molon Labe!"

Mike Straw [comp_threat_man{at}juno.com]

---