re: PAIN
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe222-20030505-02.html>

The article "Pain" by William Stone III hits the money right on
the head. Until the average citizen feels the pain of repression he will
sit back and be fat, dumb, and happy, and not care one whit what is
happening to the country. Perhaps it is time for all anarcho-capitalists to
copy a page from the book The Devil's Advocate by Taylor Caldwell
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0515078646/qid=10522153
99/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-2156010-8941726?v=glance&s=books>, in
which the resistance fighters who are about to be captured are rescued,
given a new identity as one of the overseers, and sent out to repress the
people even more so they will revolt and overthrow the evil dictatorship as
soon as possible. I just do not know if I would have the stomach for it.

MacGregor K. Phillips [mkp{at}topsecretcrypto.com]
http://www.topsecretcrypto.com>

* * * * * * * * * * *

ANOTHER WASTED LIFE

In December 2000 in Las Vegas Nevada, Marina Cannon, forty-nine, was
murdered by her husband, Vitaly Zakouto, fifty-four. Case closed? Not
hardly. Marina was subjected to seven months of terror and domestic
violence at Zakouto's hands so severe that Cannon repeatedly predicted he
would kill her.

By November 2000, frustrated Family Court judge Arthur Ritchie Junior had
already thrown Zakouto in jail at least twice for contempt. During the
appearance, Cannon told the judge that Zakouto was going to kill her.
"You have to stop him. If you don't stop him, the outcome of this is
preordained. He can't stop himself. ... he's angry," she said.

Judge Ritchie told Cannon that unfortunately, the allegations of contempt
that were before him weren't based on documented, independent evidence. The
Family Court system can only do so much when an individual like Zakouto is
intent on ignoring judicial warnings to stay away from his victim. "No
court will protect you. That's the bottom line. The court will issue orders
that attempt and try to protect you, but if someone is engaging in criminal
conduct with disregard for the court's orders, there's nothing I can do for
you. You have to protect yourself in any way you can. I've entered every
order that I can prohibiting him from contact," Ritchie said.

Zakouto was convicted of first-degree murder. During the sentencing hearing
Marina 's will was read: "If I have died under suspicious
circumstances, Vitaly did it. In the event I am murdered... Tell the world
what happened to me." At the time of Cannon's murder, a criminal
stalking charge was pending against Zakouto. Clark County prosecutor Ed
Kane acknowledged in Zakouto's case that "the system that I'm a part
of let her down." Judge Ritchie didn't return a phone call left on the
answering machine of a judicial assistant in his office.

So what's the answer? Take judge Ritchie's advice: be responsible for your
own safety. First, read Lieutenant Colonel "Jeff" Cooper's
"The Principles of Personal Defense," then "Jim
Grover's" "Street Smarts," to point you in the right
direction. Read "The Truth About Self-Protection," and "In
The Gravest Extreme," by Massad Ayoob. Take the "Refuse to Be a
Victim" course to open your eyes that you have options, then take the
"Basics of Personal Protection in the Home" course to learn the
nuts and bolts of how to do it. Listen to the
advice of experts:

"There are no victims, only volunteers." - Eleanor Roosevelt

"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of
man, but must be taught to protect herself." - Susan B. Anthony

"Even in the best and most peacefully civilized countries many
occasions arise when a woman versed in the knowledge and use of firearms
may find that information and skill of great importance." - Annie
Oakley

The only way to live is in that state of awareness and training that allow
us to move through life with the confidence to know that any threat is, in
the words of Lieutenant Colonel "Jeff" Cooper, ".in more in
danger from you than you are from him." The alternative is to be
another Marina Cannon.

Mike Straw [mikestraw1{at}juno.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

re: THE ILLEGITIMACY OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe222-20030505-01.html#letter6>

In TLE#222, Russell D. Longcore asks worthy questions:

"Are we so afraid of the IRS and its power that we send our money in
as a kind of protection payoff.......hoping that they'll just leave us
alone?"

Yes.

Like so many others, I have been unable to find the law that requires me to
pay. In their own rules they must send me a notice of tax owed if I owe
any, and I have never received such a notice. I only pay their tax because
I fear them, paid under duress and threat of force.

"But, what would the FedGov do if 25 million people simply refused to
send their money to the IRS?"

They would continue to do what they do now. Prosecute one at a time while
FBI informants and gung-ho shock troops ensure that any groups remain small
enough to eat easily. Since they're "from the government", other
government agencies like police and sheriffs, for example the Texas Rangers
at Waco, will not interfere and likely even help for a cut of the take.

Legitimacy is perceived. Because of public schools, the great majority of
the population believes that they cannot fight back at all, that the
legitimacy of the government and its actions are beyond questioning in
major part because "we voted for them". That is what they have
been taught by that very same government.

"Please don't misunderstand me. I don't wish to become a tax protestor."

and

"The Dominican Republic or Panama are both looking pretty good to me
right now....maybe Grand Cayman."

I believe you're fooling yourself. What you do not wish to become is a
"statistic". Your work is in practical matters, so do the math.
Make it a cold and calculated profit and loss statement and then act on it.
Is it worth living on a warm, tropical island to avoid paying taxes to a
government you consider both immoral and illegitimate?

Curt Howland [Howland{at}Priss.com]

* * * * * * * * * * *

re: VOTE SWAPPING TO ESCAPE THE TWO-PARTY SYSTEM
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe222-20030505-01.html#letter5>

In the most recent TLE, Jeff Fisher offered a "vote swapping"
scheme to help third parties break the two-party stranglehold on politics.
It's a good idea -- good enough that I implemented an online version nearly
four years ago at VoteBuddy.com (still available, though dormant until the
next national election cycle).

"Vote swapping" isn't quite the right term, though. Under this
scheme, nobody votes for anyone they don't actually prefer for their own
reasons. I call it "creative vote canceling," because it cancels
two hold-your-nose votes for major party candidates and frees them both for
honest and forthright expression. This fact importantly insulates such a
program from the legitimate accusations of subverting the electoral system
that were directed at Nader Trader and other similar schemes in 2000.

I like Mr. Fisher's twist, though. My implementation was basically an honor
system, relying on mutual trust with no hope of verifying that one's
BallotBuddy wasn't cheating -- voting for the same old major party while
getting you to switch from the opposing major party to a less threatening
one. By using absentee ballots as he suggests, that problem is nicely
solved. I will certainly recommend it at VoteBuddy.com in the future.

What's needed now is a way for strangers who like the idea to be matched as
I do at VoteBuddy.com, but with a similar guarantee of mutual compliance. I
have two ideas for how to accomplish that.

First, if both individuals want to vote for the same third party, that
party itself might play the role of intermediary, receiving their absentee
ballots, mailing them out together, and sending the participants
confirmation. This would work best at the state party level, allowing the
creative vote canceling process to apply to multiple statewide candidates
as well as to the presidential race.

Second, if the participants want to support different third parties or
independents, some nonpartisan individual or organization could accept and
forward their ballots, and send them a confirmation. That might seem to be
a natural role for VoteBuddy.com, but as a one-man operation (me), both the
time commitment and the potential liability issues put it out of reach ...
unless I expand the operation to include volunteers or even (shudder) 501
(c) 3 status....

I think a bit of brainstorming on options for this sort of long-distance
verification is in order. Feel free to send me suggestions at kvc{at}tima.com.
Still, I think implementation at the level of state parties should provide
ample opportunity for most voters to get matched up to their satisfaction,
so the nonpartisan approach would appear to offer minimum utility for
substantial costs in both time and money. Thus, I'd say the top priority
will be to develop turnkey software that any state party affiliate can
easily use to match up participants, track incoming absentee ballots, crank
out confirmations, and maintain online reports of the ongoing progress
during each election cycle. Meanwhile, it's time to start selling third
party leaders on the idea. And it's probably not too early to get some
legal minds thinking about how to squelch the inevitable legal challenges,
as major parties complain about political parties handling votes on their
way to the ballot box -- though it's tough to imagine why a party would do
anything other than faithfully submit the absentee ballots casting votes
for their own candidates! The main thrust will probably appeal to the
sanctity of the secret ballot being violated; but even that has ample
precedent in our favor, with help routinely offered at precincts for
disabled or illiterate voters to cast their votes. Pretty clearly, given
that this system only helps the voter express her political will in a
voluntary (even proactive) manner, legal challenges will have tough
slogging indeed!

Finally, I noticed that dumping plurality voting in favor of approval
voting (AV) -- see http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~hagerp/ec_reform.htm>
-- would provide much the same benefits from inside the electoral system. I
also think that AV offers such clear benefits for voters (almost certainly
better satisfaction with outcomes for the average voter, while enabling
people to vote their dreams and their consciences rather than their fears)
that it will be ridiculously easy to beat up on major party opposition to
the idea. So I favor a two-pronged attack: the external do-it-yourself
approach outlined above, plus the pursuit of internal reform with AV in the
political arena.

Thanks to Mr. Fisher for the creative nuance that can turn a good idea into
a great one.

Kent Van Cleave [kvc{at}tima.com]
VoteBuddy.com

- - -

Kent Van Cleave writes:
"In the most recent TLE, Jeff Fisher offered a "vote
swapping" scheme... I implemented an online version nearly four years
ago..."

Jeff Fisher replies:
I knew someone should have thought of it sooner, but I hadn't seen it. I'm
glad to hear that someone else is working this angle.

Kent:
"What's needed now is a way for strangers who like the idea to be
matched... I think a bit of brainstorming on options for this sort of
long-distance verification is in order."

Jeff:
Matching yes, but I'm not sure that we need long distance. When I think
about co-operation possibly extending down the ticket, I expect matching to
be a community activity involving voters who share some congressional
and/or state legislative districts. Such geographically bound voters should
be able to meet face to face.

Churches, clubs and newspapers (even tiny community ones) could serve to
offer mixers. Schools could suffice also if they weren't owned by the
government. For this one activity, local Green and Libertarian parties
might even hold their noses and co-operate to organize something together.
With something this important, it's also possible that one or more
organizations will emerge specifically for this function.

Kent:
"...it's probably not too early to get some legal minds thinking about
how to squelch the inevitable legal challenges, as major parties complain
about political parties handling votes on their way to the ballot
box..."

Jeff:
If, as I expect, voters meet FTF, they would avoid this problem by
depositing sealed ballots themselves. My biggest worry is that the major
parties will eliminate mail-in ballots as soon as we the people exploit
them in large numbers to escape the two-party trap.

Thank you for your comments Kent; they were very encouraging.

-- Jeff Fisher [jeffryfisher{at}attbi.com]
http://jeffryfisher.net/statesman/>

* * * * * * * * * * *

re: FANTASY ISLE; NW PG WBST FLIGHT O FANCY : SONGBOOK
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe222-20030505-01.html#letter2>

Hi,

I've recently sent an original lyric to The Libertarian Enterprise, as well
as adding it and a Songbook section to my own website. It has generated a
little response, notably from Kathleen Stockwell, implying that she
represents Rush Limbaugh and encouraging me enthusiastically (with three
exclamation points in her message!!!) to send it in as vocals. Sadly, I do
not sing. Or rather, I sing both sadly and badly. If Ms Stockwell's
entreaties are sincere and legitimate, Rush's audience represents a good
opportunity to push the libertarian theme.

In specific answer to new subscriber tf from bakersfield: You (and anybody)
can help as follows: do you sing, can you play an instrument? Lay down some
vocals on Fantasy Isle (to the tune of Gilligan's Island), or anything else
you find in Songbook, and send it in to Rush or anybody else willing to
play it on the air. And of course, keep your eyes on my site and other
worthy sources, and keep banging your drum for freedom.

Imua,
Lehr Duquesne [lehr{at}citizenduquesne.org]
www.citizenduquesne.org

* * * * * * * * * * *

re: A PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe222-20030505-01.html#letter4>

In "Another Letter from Lehr Duquesne" he states the First
Amendment does stipulate that the "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, which leads inevitably to the
conclusion that there can be no Federal or national support for
religion.". The correct phrase is "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion,". In this context [an
establishment of religion] establishment is used as a noun and not a verb.
This makes all the difference in the world in how this phrase is
interpreted.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary CD_ROM v3.0, establishment as a
noun means: "An organized staff of employés or servants, often
including, and sometimes limited to, the building in which they are
located: a. A public institution, a school, factory, house of business,
etc".

What this actually means is that Congress cannot make any laws respecting
the physical buildings, or persons connected with a these buildings, in
which a religion is practiced. In other words, they cannot treat the
physical assets or employees of a religion any differently than the
physical assets or employees of any other person or legal entity, because
in order to do so they would have to pass a law respecting an establishment
of religion. This means no exemption from taxation in any form. A law
exempting you from something is
still a law.

Both governments and religions prefer "the establishment of
religion" interpretation because it allows government to pass tax
exemption laws for the favored established religions who then turn around
and support the government in the enslavement of the people. Ayn Rand at
least got one thing right, Attila the Hun and the Witch Doctor, faith and
force, destroyers of the modern world. The democrats are Attila the Hun who
rule by brute force, while the republicans are the Witch Doctors who rule
through faith. Put them both together, which seems to be the rule now, and
you have a very lethal combination.

While I think any tax is outright theft and the looters should be shot on
sight, I think it is high time that the "organized" religions of
the world start paying their fair share. Perhaps they would then see their
partnership with big government in a different light, and instead of siding
with them to enslave the people, they would help in its elimination.

It is the second phrase of the religion clause in the 1st Amendment
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", that guarantees you
the natural right to the free exercise of the religion of your choice. So,
if FedGov or any State wants to establish (verb) a religion of their own,
the 1st Amendment does not prohibit them from doing so. All it does is
prohibit them from passing any laws for or against an establishment (noun)
of religion.

MacGregor K. Phillips [mkp{at}topsecretcrypto.com]
http://www.topsecretcrypto.com>

---