jump to navigation
America in
Chains

THERE OUGHTA BE A LAW July 14, 2010

Immediately upon passage of this measure, every act, bill, decree,
directive, edict, executive or administrative order, initiative, law,
mandate, ordinance, proclamation, regulation, resolution, rule, or statute,
promulgated or enacted by any agency or any other part of the United
States government between January 19, 2009 and January 21, 2013 or the
end of the Barack Obama Administration, shall be null and void.

Comments

1. Administrator - July 14, 2010

Have I left anything out?

2. al perez - July 14, 2010

I think BO signed off on an order preventing the scrapping of once fire military brass and authorizing its sale to commercial reloaders. He may accidentally have done a few other good things on the blind pig occasionally finding an acorn principal. To refer to another old saw, there may be a few babies in a lot of bathwater that need to be rescued.

Admittedly a very few babies in a frakkin’ helluva lot of bathwater.
We’re talkin’ one or two viable preemies in the whole Pacific here.
maybe worth effort, maybe not.

3. Administrator - July 14, 2010

Ah, but the order to destroy the brass was also issued during the stated period. A previous order had been recinded by the Twigg Administration.

4. The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit - July 14, 2010

Rule.

5. al perez - July 14, 2010

Sorry if seem like downer on original point but just saw someone who really needs the cash leave several tens of thousand dollars worth of furniture out to be ruined by weather for a year and toss out even salvageable parts today instead of having sold or recovered for personal use before it got ruined. So feeling very cautious about throwing out treasure with trash.

Basic premise sound though, and admittedly sometimes you can’t avoid throwing out treasure with trash.

6. W.Edwin Hinds IV - July 14, 2010

Reviewing the return on investment of digging a couple grams of black pepper out of 10 tons of fly shit, one would be well advised to scrap the whole things in one cathartic sneeze.

7. parabarbarian - July 14, 2010

I’m curious why you picked Jan 19, 2008 as the start date. Not that I object — I’d like to go a century or two further back — but why that particular day?

8. R.D. Bartucci - July 14, 2010

-
Hm. And how are those who have collected money as the result of the expenditures commanded by our Fraudulence-in-Chief and his accessories to be addressed?

I have no objection whatsoever to doing a “clean slate” on the administration of our President-With-an-Asterisk (the Mamzer from Mombasa), but like the extirpation of a cancer, there is the damage done by the malignancy which needs recognition and mitigation after the damned thing has been hacked out, fulgurated, and otherwise removed from the body politic.

9. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 14, 2010

OK- he did an EO prohibiting public-funded hospitals from keeping same-sex partners from the bedside of their spouse. The only “baby” I see. As to the financial gains of the few from Obama’s crap-, take it away (as much as possible) and let the chips fall where they may. And accept the fact that sometimes, cancer requires amputation to save a life. Accept the amputation of some of our goods in order to save the rest of them.

BTW- nice to see the return of El Neil. It gets boring with no one to supply the topic of the week.

10. R.D. Bartucci - July 14, 2010


Anent those who have benefited from public moneys expended by our Mulignane Mistake, it is enormously difficult to “take it away (as much as possible)” in that it can be argued that the myriads of parties who have received these stolen goods (and other considerations) did so in arguable good faith.

According them due process (and they cannot be denied due process, can they?) will inescapably require enormous and exacting effort and much time. Might be best to write those wasted billions off.

If we’re going to wipe the slate clean of everything but the memory of Barry the Stoner (whose person belongs in some well-maintained and narrow little room in a secure federal facility, where his only companions in the exercise yard are the subordinate members of his administration), it seems wisest, safest and best to wipe the books as well.

11. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 14, 2010

I’ll take the loss. GLADLY. Proposal accepted.

12. al perez - July 14, 2010

Uh, what about any profreedom laws passed over BO’s veto by a congress elected in November?

Seriously, you know a man by the company he keeps. The only thing keeping his appointees from doing more harm is their total incompetence.
Or maybe they’re just setting us up.

13. Administrator - July 14, 2010

I made an error — hard as it is to believe — the start date should be Januar y19, 2009, which I choose in order to take in Obama’s Inauguration Day.

14. al perez - July 14, 2010

Given the lack of difference in the policies Baby Bush carried out his last year in office and what BO is doing, maybeso you right first time.

15. R. A. Russell - July 14, 2010

I say, second the motion, with French Horns! And throw the rascals out… and don’t vote in any new ones!

16. R. A. Russell - July 14, 2010

Oh, and Happy Bastille Day!

17. al perez - July 15, 2010

I second your second and plead for a fifth.

18. Ken Whittet - July 15, 2010

And pass a law prohibiting any new laws, as well as prohibiting re-authorizing laws that have been “sunsetted”!

19. Ward Griffiths - July 15, 2010

Crap, and I missed burning down the local prison (well, even concrete built to sicillian contractors’ standards like the Hudson County jail don’t burn down that easy (it breaks down during winter, but it takes several more years than that new jail has stood to break down, it’s new), but I was busy and the dental appointment, after he (the dentist) didn’t show up, I assume flood conditions betwixt ends of the trip and at 80 he’s never grabbed onto the cell phone fashion, and a discovery of a new (to me, they’ve been in the next block from that dentist for years) Vietnamese restaurant filled the evening. I’ll live until his regular Saturday hours, the combination of Endocet, Amoxicillin and Ibuprofin will probably keep me alive. The vietnamese cuisine makes it worth living (while I never went there, I an officially a veteran of that undeclared war, and while I was never in-country, I love the food).

I’d forgotten about Bastille Day. Manny Davis’s birthday. Not a holiday for me, but for several leftlibs I’ve respected. SEK3 comes to mind.

The news of the death of Jim Hogan comes hard. While we disagreed on a number of issues, he was never in favor of initiation of force (what a writer’s characters do are not always what the author himself (or herself) supports — characters gain some freedom from the writer and sometimes do their own shit — it’s why I never finished a novel, as I can’t have a novel ending with shit I despise at the end, so I kill them off and grind the paper after they do that to me). Yeah, it’s my evil subconscious. I can’t kill it, but I can kill its work rather than get rich from its evil attempts.
Steven King has no such shame, and freely admits it — I respect him, but I think his stories and the movies [and TV miniseries] based on them really suck. I’ve watched two movies and a couple of miniseries). We’re both big F. Paul Wilson fans, Steve could afford to produce a good Repairman Jack movie. He claims to be the primo member of the Repairman Jack fan club, but he’s never showed up on the forum unless using a pseudo (not unknown).

Actually, if anybody gets a shot at meeting with Steve King in the future, why not ask that if he’s such a big fan of Repairman Jack, why doesn’t he give Paul a hand with a Repairman Jack movie? Even the special effects are nickel and dime to what are usually done on the (don’t say this — piss poor and I just mean the story) stuff in his movies compared with stuff that was crap and stayed crap. Has he seen either “Riverworld” movie on Skiffy channel? I knew Phil Farmer, I’m glad he’s dead so he didn’t have to see that shit.

Somebody remind Steve King that he started as a writer, not as a guy who showed up in cameos during crap adaptations. He has the bucks to do do justice to the writers he grew up reading.

Steve, if you’re here (and not just playing at being a Repairman Jack fan), you have the power to get some of this shit done. Paul doesn’t (a crap movie and a few shorts and videos don’t do much). But the words of a fan with credit in the industry can do a lot.

I’ll admit I’ve never set a foot in Maine. I spent my early youth in Los Angeles and my last three years of high school in New Hampshire (and there is as much buried evil in New Hampshire as there is in Maine, and members of the Free State Project are likely to dig it up). I left New England almost 40 years ago and will move back as soon as I can. During my teens in New Hampshire my best tools for learning the local accent or something were the “Bert and I” records. If there is a better source for learning real New English pronunciation, name it.

20. Charles Fuller - July 15, 2010

“Burn down the prison.”
With enough rust-belt iron oxide and recycled aluminum cans one can make thermite, and burn down just about any structure.

21. Ward Griffiths - July 15, 2010

It takes a lot, Charles. And a lot of work to make a fine enough powder of either oxide (since most of what you’re grinding isn’t oxide, yet — the oxides actually protect the metal). And while “stone walls do not a prison make”, a couple feet of concrete is lot to burn through when you’re trying not to attract attention.

22. John Taylor - July 16, 2010

As long as we’re thinking grandly, I prefer:

<>

[Feel free to substitute the name of your state as appropriate.]

Less grandly:

<>

23. John Taylor - July 16, 2010

Aw prairie piss! Tripped up by hidden html codes!

The first wishful thought was secession of my home state, the second, the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

24. al perez - July 16, 2010

That’s okay. the way things are going we’ll be well ahead of the game if the US doesn’t expel the states with the most freedom lovers in them.

We’ll get our independence yet.

25. R.D. Bartucci - July 16, 2010


Al, I think it impossible that the infestation in Mordor-on-the-Potomac could possibly ALLOW “the states with the most freedom lovers in them” to escape their control.

Imagine, if you will, what it would mean to the statist control freaks of the Boot-On-Your-Neck Party if there were individual sovereign states (even if noncontiguous, even if wholly surrounded by territories still under their domination) in which the private citizen is free to conduct his economic affairs without the imposition of those crippling statutes and regulations which either thieve away the value of productive effort or intervene to debilitate such efforts for the benefit of BOYN Party constituencies such as organized labor.

Capital flight alone would be ruinous to the rump “United States of America” left behind by these departing polities. The emigration of productive individuals, the so-called “human capital” upon which Hussein the Hubshi counts for the wealth he wants to spread around….

I think it advantageous that the great majority of the federal government’s military forces are occupied in maintaining empire in the Sandbox and elsewhere. What I fear is that the relocation of heavy armored combat units to places like Fort Bliss (in Texas) is a measure undertaken more to ensure the military occupation of these states, and thereby compel them – at gunpoint – to remain subordinate to this increasingly intolerable and lawless excuse for a national government.

Just as in the War of Northern Aggression (1861-1865), which was in truth fought not to free the chattel slaves held in the seceding southern states but rather to enforce the Republican Party’s horrendous Morrill Tariff of 1861, the central government of these United States cannot afford to permit the least trace of a free state anywhere on this continent.

Just as the ports of Charleston and New Orleans could not be permitted in 1861 to operate without collecting the protectionist exactions of the Morrill Tariff (thereby allowing the citizens of the Union outside the secessionist states to channel their own commerce through these and other venues, leaving Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore to dry up and die under the Republicans’ “American Plan” predation), any sorts of free states – Arizona, New Hampshire, Montana, and ESPECIALLY Texas – would not only deprive the BOYN Party tyrants of the human flesh and blood upon which they feast but also the illusion of legitimacy.

Imagine the wall along the border with Mexico advocated by the most rabid xenophobes.

Now imagine such a wall wrapped around EVERY seceding member of these “states with the most freedom lovers in them.”

That’s what our “civil servants” in the District of Columbia would have to impose upon any free states which had gotten their independence from our unconstitutional mirage of a federal government under the rule of law.

26. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 16, 2010

Tom Kratman is a VERY right-wing dude, but “A State of Disobedience” is the very story you are presenting here, Rich. With one exception The BOYN party loses in the end.

27. R.D. Bartucci - July 17, 2010


Naeale, I’m familiar with Kratman’s 2003 novel, but I had early on conceived a profound personal dislike for Kratman, who is a self-admitted traditionalist conservative expressing overt and profound anti-libertarian sentiments.

I attend in particular upon his desire to re-criminalize the voluntary termination of pregnancy, which is found in *A State of Disobedience*.

I cite Zelman & Smith’s 2001 work, *Hope* for their chapter on this issue, pertinent to the anti-abortionists’ refusal to confront the fact that their goals NECESSITATE “pregnancy police” to prevent women from taking advantage of both travel and available technology (in terms, for example, of abortifacient drugs already in the U.S. Pharmacopoeia for other purposes) should they get themselves in a family way and seek in privacy to end such a condition without bringing the conceptus to term.

See http://tinyurl.com/25t9u2l to read this chapter.

I was instead thinking more of Anthony Lewis’ book *The Third Revolution* (2004), which is set not in Texas but Montana, and is far less combat-intensive than anything I suspect Baen Books (which publishes a helluva lot of military SF) would ever put into print.

But I agree with you that the availability of combat arms brigades in the Lone Star State appears indicative of an unstated desire on the part of our Fraudulence-in-Chief to keep the legislature in Austin mindful of his ability to break things and kill people to ensure that the options of secession – and nullification – are denied them.

Just why the hell is the First Armored Division being re-deployed to Ft. Bliss (an anti-aircraft training establishment) instead of Ft. Hood – home of the Armor School – or Ft. Leavenworth, both of which have established facilities for heavy mechanized forces’ maintenance and training?

Something reeks here, Neale.

28. al perez - July 17, 2010

Has it occurred to anyone that the drug war in Mexico is a perfect pretext to annex that nation? And that there is a direct freeway link from Fort Bliss to Juarez? We’re talking a ten minute drive here.

29. Ward Griffiths - July 17, 2010

It reeks, but it also implies a long chain of incompetence. Putting a bunch of crew and kit where there is no means to maintain them is to me a plus on the freedom side (especially since we _do_ have a clue about repair, maintainence and resupply).

Obama has somethinq LBJ and Nixon didn’t have, nukes retargetable at “domestic” targets.

30. al perez - July 17, 2010

Moving First Armored to Fort Bliss, involves creating several hundred thousand jobs in El Paso. The Congressman from El Paso is on the Armed Services Committee. The Democrats secure El Paso by providing goodies to Fort Bliss. W was a Texan (actually a misplaced New Englander) whose wife had ties to EP.

BTW Fort Bliss is more than Air Artilllery though that is what they are best known for. Good place for desert warfare traning, among other things. Warm dry weather also good for longer training cycle.

Also BTW, originally plan was to move Air Artillery School to Leavenworth, however someone somewhere someone did some fast talking.

31. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 17, 2010

I like Tom perrsonally- he’s actually a friend. But we TOTALLY disagree on politics. He and John Ringo are WAY too out there on the right fringe to make me happy. But I just liked the general plotline.

32. al perez - July 17, 2010

correction move AA to Fort sills but left at Bliss.

even if it wasn’t Denmark, a deal was made.

33. R.D. Bartucci - July 17, 2010


Albert, it might make sense to move air defense artillery training to Fort Sill, which is where the increasingly underemployed field artillery trains.

Weren’t a whole bunch of artillery battalions “converted” into the equivalent of military police units from 2003 forward for service in the Sandbox?

Give complete air superiority (enabling B-52′s to loiter endlessly overhead, dropping one GPS-guided bomb at a time onto designated targets) and “smart” artillery rounds, there’s not been much call this past decade for massive barrages.

Still and all, Fort Bliss is better set up for AAA training and technology testing than is Fort Sill.

Check the Fort Sill Web site right now and the first thing that hits you, however, is a focus on “…the integration of air defense and field artillery into the Fires Center of Excellence. ”

Damn. Just what the hell does field artillery have to do with air defense? The latter is necessary to prevent hostile air attack from destroying or dislocating the latter, but the field artillery don’t do diddly to further the air defense guys’ mission.

34. al perez - July 18, 2010

Counterbattery for mortar and enemy artillery attacks.

35. al perez - July 18, 2010

Though I am a Xian considering BO’s presidency causes me to take great comfort in the Hindu doctrine of Maya.

For that matter so do Bush, per et fils, Clinton, Carter and Nixon.

36. R.D. Bartucci - July 18, 2010


Albert, why stop with those scum? Let’s keep on adding presidents until we get to Grover Cleveland (who, in my opinion, was the closest thing we had to a constitutionally adherent occupant of the Oval Office since Abraham “The American Lenin” Lincoln slimed in to enforce the Morrill Tariff and precipitated the War of Northern Aggression).

I don’t much care about “the Hindu doctrine of Maya.” For Barry Soetoro, I’m more inclined to offer him the guest of honor post in a ceremony paying tribute to Huitzilopochtli.

Might be nice to discover whether the sonofabitch lacks a four-chambered heart as well as a birth certificate.

“Gimme that old-time religion….”

37. al perez - July 19, 2010

Maya is the belief that all is an illusion. Applying this to BO and others is quite comforting.

always remember what the Green Beret told the Buddhist monk in Cambodia back in ’69, “We aren’t really here, this really isn’t happening.”

Impressed the Monk mightily.

they aren’t really there, this isn’t happening. We can all pull a Will Saunders.

and at the rate things are going we may have to.

38. El Neil - July 19, 2010

And there is no spoon.

39. al perez - July 20, 2010

use fingers to get honey.

better yet, next election give finger to…

40. Tom Kratman - July 20, 2010

Yeah…ummm, no R.D.; that’s mindless, borderline illiterate bullshit. An anti-abortion character wanting to re-criminalize abortion is just that, a character. As Niven says, “There’s a technical term for people who mistake a character’s views for the authors. That term is idiot.”

That said, I’m not a big fan. On the other hand, I don’t worry about it because people who limit their reproduction by abortion will soon enough be outnumbered by people who do not. Then they lose politically.

I’m also not a big fan of libertarianism, frankly, and won’t be until they can give me answers I find credible on the question of defense from outsiders, defense from internal barbarians, and public health (by which I mean plague prevention, not socialized medicine).

41. al perez - July 20, 2010

A: assimilate if friendly or shoot if not.
B. Shoot.
C. Vaccinate those with common sense, let the rest die. If no vaccine available sell meds to those who will take, let conspiracy nut cases die. If have to vaccinate by force or impose quarantines be prepared to pay compensation for real damages.

42. R.D. Bartucci - July 20, 2010


Anent Kratman, the writer staring at the proverbial big blank page is in the process of crafting a story along the lines of his own personal values, and whatever he is holding up to his readers as “the good guy” is the exemplification of what he – the writer – holds to be morally valuable.

The opposition, “the bad guy,” tends reliably to personify what the writer finds morally reprehensible.

The characters a writer crafts, Larry Niven notwithstanding, and the situations in which the reader finds them, are the creations of the writer. They are his responsibility. They are as the writer intended them to be, and nothing else.

Ever.

The writer who holds otherwise is either duplicitous or unconscious.

Now, If we got something from Norman Spinrad – whose alternate history novel *The iron Dream* consists largely of a fictional fantasy titled *Lord of the Swastika* (written by an Adolf Hitler who made a rather different career choice) – I’d listen. The writer who’s working the art of pastiche or parody or whatever in hell you call something like *The Iron Dream* is openly inviting the reader to join him in an attack upon what is being overtly expressed, a “turnabout.”

But that is sure as hell NOT what is written in Kratman’s *A State of Disobedience* with regard to his “anti-abortion character,” and insisting that the case is otherwise skates close to the contemptible.

If you want to see anti-abortion “character’s views” which are emphatically NOT intended to be mistaken for those of the authors, look again at that sample chapter from Zelman’s and Smith’s novel *Hope*, to be found again at:

http://tinyurl.com/25t9u2l

Contrast that with Kratman’s in the above-mentioned novel, sample chapters of which are made available by his publisher online at:

http://tinyurl.com/2gx8pvw

And if you haven’t read it, I recommend purchasing a copy. His anti-abortion hobbyhorse notwithstanding, Kratman wrote a pretty good story, and the bad guys are definitely bad guys.

We are all of us familiar with literature written by “Liberals” (and similar collectivists) to coddle “Liberal” sensitivities and peddle the “Liberal” line of statism, are we not?

As an example, let’s look at the chick flick movie *The American President* (1995), in which both the sassy female lobbyist and the charismatic widowed president are working with great fervor to push the following (and I quote the character of this “heroic” president in the movie):

“…White House Resolution 455, an energy bill requiring a 20 percent reduction of the emission of fossil fuels over the next ten years. It is by far the most aggressive stride ever taken in the fight to reverse the effects of global warming. The other piece of legislation is the crime bill. As of today, it no longer exists. I’m throwing it out. I’m throwing it out writing a law that makes sense. You cannot address crime prevention without getting rid of assault weapons and handguns. ”

Now, in the wake of Climategate, we all know that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a massive “Cargo Cult Science” fraud which is currently being shoved up the nation’s collective ass for no purpose other than to inflict increased taxes on everything every person in this country needs to live.

It will do absolutely nothing to mitigate the global warming that’s been going on at the same rather steady rate since the end of the Little Ice Age (about 1850). That warming will almost certainly not get the global temperature averages up into the ranges seen during the last major climate optimum, the Medieval Warm period.

So the “fight to reverse the effects of global warming” is an impossibility predicated upon the scientific hoax of all time.

That was evident back in the early ’90s, too. The “Liberal” assholes who made *The American President* simply didn’t want to apply sound scientific methodology to a rigorously skeptical examination of something that offered him a chance to use government to fuck over his neighbors some more.

And “…getting rid of assault weapons and handguns” – victim disarmament – is SUCH a noble objective, isn’t it?

The writers, producers, actors, and everybody else engaged in getting *The American Presence* into the movie theaters thought that what they were extolling was the best, most moral objectives they could possibly espouse.

Doubtless, when writing *A State of Disobedience*, Tom Kratman was thinking the same kind of thing.

His characters – like the characters in *The American President* – said what Mr. Kratman wanted them to say, in situations Mr. Kratman created.

For Mr. Kratman to deny that it was his intentions that drove his art is rather too much like good old Bubba and his “what the meaning of ‘is’ is,” ain’t it?

43. R.D. Bartucci - July 20, 2010


Ah, well. So much for those errors which spellchecking software cannot detect.

44. al perez - July 20, 2010

Laxt time ’round 90% of the officers’ corps supported secession. If defending constitutional rights is reason for resorting to big S maybeso abunch do same again. Especially if some texican and tejana girls start convincing them and their troops to support Constitution.

45. Ken Valentine - July 21, 2010

To Ward and Charles:

Very finely powdered Iron Oxide is cheap and readily available.

It’s called Jewlers Rouge. Most forms of it come in a waxy stick and is not what you want. Buehler sells it in powder form.

Where you might get finely powdered Aluminum . . . I don’t know.

46. Ken Valentine - July 21, 2010

Sorry, that’s Jewelers. Pardon the typo.

47. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 21, 2010

Tom Kratman, thanks for stopping by. Did Al answer your questions?
Al- liked the answers.
Richard- Told ya he wasn’t THAT bad!! I wrote a review of a book of his over on Newsvine, and he “jest popped on by” to tell me nearly the same thing. You’d like him, and agree with him on quite a bit.

48. Tom Kratman - July 21, 2010

No, he didn’t Neale. Who does the shooting? The citizenry? Under what chain of command, what trained and experienced chain of command, v. the First Mongolian Shock Horde? Who does the shooting v. domestic barbarians? They’re organized, you know, some of them, and can retaliate against families. And there is more to plague prevention than vaccination; there is, for example, vector control, which no individual can do even for himself. Those were, in short, the kind of glib answers that have turned me off to libertarianism.

49. El Neil - July 21, 2010

Tom, your assumption that one individual’s “glib answers”: represent the views of all libertarians is immature and ill-advised. Before forming an equally “glib” opinion, you should study further because I guarantee you, nobody else — conservative, “progressive”, fascist, Marxist — has any answers that are worth a rusty fuck. They’re the ones who filled the toilet we’re all forced to swim in. We’re the only hope you’ve got.

50. Tom Kratman - July 21, 2010

No answer is going to be perfect, no, and no answer will serve very well forever. But good and bad have to be measured not just by scope and depth, but also by duration. I have no empirical evidence of Marxism or Fascism being able to last long enough to justify the suffering they impose. I have no particular reason to expect libertarianism – if ever brought to reality, which I do not expect – to last long enough before descending into either ruin or barbarism to justify what I would expect to be its few short years of the good life. There is a hostile world out there, both naturally and through the design of man, that I do not see libertarianism being able to deal with very well for very long.

In any case, Al answers and my responses were illustrative, not dispositive. Even so, no libertarian has yet given me answers to those problems that I find credible, given the world as it is and not as we dream it might be. How does, for example, libertarianism deal with vector control as a part of plague prevention?

51. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 21, 2010

Well, Tom, I told you a few months ago that you’d at least have fun if you stopped by! Vector control is probably the hardest problem there may be to deal with. The first two answers, quippy though you might find them, are accurate. Assimilate them if friendly, or gun them down. Internal barbarians will die a swift death, organized or not, at the hands of an armed populace, carrying their means of self defense on their hip or under their arm. Well, my daughter wants the computer for a little nickjr, so I gotta go for now.

52. al perez - July 21, 2010

Mr. Kratman,
since as far as I know I haven’t earned the privilege of calling you by first name. Feel free to extend me the privilege at your leisure.

You’re right. answers were glib.
I will give a more detailed answer the day I write novel dealing with each. The reason is simple, you have asked for the response by an organized society and I was answering how an individual would respond. To get into how a libertarian society would respond to threat of foreign invasion or goblins (as the late Jeff Cooper described internal barbarians.) I would have to create a plausible libertarian society, show how it dealt with the threat, whether they would have to compromise ideals or if the society they created was equipped to deal with the enemy without violating ideals. That sounds like a book or maybe a series, perhaps one in which a refugee from a decaying authoritarian society crosses between dimensions to a society built on libertarian ideals (plug for my buddy Neil).
As for vector control, are we talking putting the whack on skeeters, rats, and other vermin, proper sanitation, killing infected livestock and wildlife, quarantining infected individuals, or strategically vaccinating individuals to create a “firebreak” to stop spread of plague.

It may be that due to a fatal flaw in human character we will never achieve a perfect libertarian society, but if you will pardon my use of vulgarity we can do a fucking hell of a better job of protecting people’s essential freedoms than we are doing so far and we should be trying to do so.

Maybe we can at least stop creating internal barbarians, which would lead to a shortage of congressmen and other legislators.

53. Tom Kratman - July 21, 2010

Vectors are disease carriers, Neale. Think tse-tse flies, fleas, mosquitos.

I’m always just Tom, Al.

Not merely doing so, but doing so in a very thorough manner, one that requires records, hence bureaucracy, laws, hence law enforcement, punishments, hence judges and jailors, taxes to pay for it, enforcers to collect the taxes, all that, etc., etc. And we don’t even know what new diseases may pop up, using the old vectors or perhaps some new ones. And identifying those may require still futher government, more bureaucracy, more taxes…

54. al perez - July 21, 2010

Again with the story line: How does a libertarian society deal with an outbreak of virus x? do they literally turn into health fascists?
Do they turn to free enterprise and find a way to make a profit stopping spread of illness? do they fragment and different communities turn to one answer or another or a third? Do panicky politicians start a civil war over the whole thing?

am I going to use any of these ideas or are Tom and Neil or some other writer more talented than me going to incorporate them free of charge into one of their stories (just name a character after me)?

so many questions for a fan to deal with.

55. Tom Kratman - July 21, 2010

One of the problems with it, is that if you’re trying to deal with it after the outbreak, you’re probably too late. Yes, I mean that it requires a long term, nastily bureaucratic, probably expensive, therefore, commitment to plague prevention. But that’s a part of it, not the whole of it. Even with disease.

And how does the libertarian society – let’s accept that it will be very wealthy because of little regulation or taxation – stop that First Mongolian Shock Horde (that used to be a running joke at Ft Benning, by the way)? A militia? Guerrilla warfare? NVCD? Well…the FMSR is quite capable of dealing with all of those, by enslavement, terror, or extermination, if necessary. Heinlein wrote a book on the subject, Sixth Column, which tends to show that, absent godlike powers, that sort of conquest and occupation can’t be resisted; it must be stopped at the border. That requires a group as well trained, equipped, and disciplined as the FMSH? That requires money. Now, one might say, “voluntary contributions.” What about the people on moral welfare who won’t pay? What about the demoralization they cause to those who would, who resent paying for someone else’s defense who won’t pay for their own? You expect the contributions to keep coming? I don’t.

56. Tom Kratman - July 21, 2010

By the way, those three questions are at the core of why I’m a minarchical, conservative timocrat, rather than a libertarian. No more government than we need…but no less, either…and some provision for limiting the franchise to those who show civic virtue in a Heinleinian sense. (And that’s as much pimping of my books, and his, as I care to engage in.)

57. al perez - July 21, 2010

If I need to cough up money to help maintain a an organized and disciplined force to protect my life and property (not to mention freedom) from The FMSH I will be happy to put up money, If someone gets free ride it beat having to face FMSH on own. Freeloader might have trouble trading goods and services with me in future. There are others who see it the way you described.
Presumably LS evolved with mechanism to handle FMSH (Story/series ideas here) or will fall. Then again, there is no guarantee society with more “disciplined” structure will be prepared to deal with FMSH and its own disciplined structure may in fact interfere with reaction or even preventing invasion.

58. al perez - July 21, 2010

Hate to be liberal guilt trip creator, but isn’t that what happened to the Indians?

Disciplined society didn’t help either, look at fate of Azteca and Quechua.

59. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 22, 2010

Tom and Al- It’s so nice to see you boys talkig together like nice children should!! Tom, pimp your books all you want. As I’ve said before, I read’m and enjoy’em despite our political differences. As Neil knows, I disagree with him on the extent of the “Islamofascist” threat, having met a few Muslims who have actuallt told me that “holy deception IS a fact, and they very well might be practicing it right now. Does that mean I want to kill all Muslims? NOPE. But I don’t trust them as far as Neil does.

Now, to vector control, easiest to hardest (in my never humble opinion). Bugs, rats, and other vermin should be dealt with by individuals who live where the vectors proliferate. Those of us who DON’T live there, but don’t want the diseases spread to our areas will simply have to aid the controllers whether anyone gets a free ride or not. We CANNOT coerce co-operation, but we CAN refuse to do business IN ANY FORM with those who fail to do their part. No taxes, just enlightened self-interest. The two-legged vectors are a little harder to deal with in a truly free society. To be honest, I don’t have an answer yet, but I shall put my prodigious intellect and ego to work on the problem, right after I solve world peace and eliminate hunger! But seriously, I’ll try to come up with a workable idea for it.

BTW, Tom, my financial situation is changing. I’m hoping to get “The Lotus Eaters” before it goes paperback. I’m interested in seeing how this next istallment goes.

60. Tom Kratman - July 22, 2010

Al: Something I discovered as a company commander; we punish not to reform nor even to deter, generally; we punish to keep from demoralizing the others. Yes, you might pay. Others will say, “Hell, no, I’m not paying twice my fair share so that half of the people can have a free ride.” And the more that don’t, the more that then won’t. Or, and this is most likely, taxation will be renewed and enforced.

There was a helluva lot more going on with Cortez and Pizzaro, notably disease, better arms and tactics, and a huge mass of indians who helped them.

Of course, you might lose no matter what you do and have. I see no way for LS to win, however; you might as well just surrender now. When you say LS will evolve a capability, I see it rapidly dumping libertarianism in the interests of as much freedom as can be maintained, rather than some ideal which can’t be.

61. Tom Kratman - July 22, 2010

Enlightened self interest, Neale, is more likely to be, “Let those other suckers work and pay, while I reap the benefits, gratis.”

I think libertarianism, much like Marxism, depends on no large numbers of people being pieces of animate shit. The evidence for that, however, is weak.

62. al perez - July 22, 2010

Actually I was thinking in terms of developing with ability to defend self.

Please remember that the one big “tech” advantage Pizarro and Cortez had was Nicola Machiavelli’s The Prince. Hell, some have even argued that the Spaniards were the people The Prince was about. Pimping someone else’s books, in Uller Uprising Piper mentions his main character being only slightly less concerned about the “Geeks” getting a hold of the Prince as the schematics for A-bombs.

Americans don’t do Machiavelli well by the way, as shown by how we’ve fucked up in Mideast and central Asia trying to.

It may turn out that LS is opposite end of spectrum from absolute despotism (AD) and that we will never achieve. still say we need to approach the LS end of spectrum more closely.
This includes keeping after politicians who pretend to rescue us from one kind of tyranny by subbing their form instead.

You would be surprised how unshitty people can be when they know there’s a gun pointed at them by their intended victims.
Or when they see the pay off for being decent is greater than for being a shit.

That said i admit that there are those who will act like animal shit just to keep their hand in the classic frog and scorpion types.

63. Tom Kratman - July 22, 2010

It’s not just that some will be shits, Al, but that those shits will cause a whole lot of marginal people to move to the shitty pile.

64. R.D. Bartucci - July 23, 2010


I can see little reason to find fault with Mr. Kratman’s definition of the “free rider” problem, which is that the widespread perception of noncontributory or noncompliant behavior as having little or no negative consequence will tend – ceteris paribus – to foster emulation among increasing numbers of people in a community.

The individual’s sense of self-interest can be called “enlightened” only if said individual has incentive to exercise his discriminatory faculties. Otherwise, the biological rule of least effort manifests itself.

As an example of how this functions, I need only look around at the squalid clutter of my personal office, which is never seen by anyone other than myself and my wife, and she comes over here for no purpose other than to nag or task me with online research she wants done.

Without a requirement to meet the expectations of patients or clients or even co-workers (for those I have are many miles away, and we never meet in my own office, which is rural and way to hellangone out of the way for them), my books, papers, digital archives, journals, and office supplies lay where I damn’ well please, comprising a jumble from which I can pull anything I require whenever I wish to do so, but which would confound an archeologist and fuddle a team of those crime scene investigators who have become the bright and shining lights of television’s current round of police pornography masturbation fantasies.

This kind of “personal space” issue is well understood, and while the results are commonly deplorable, it tends not to impinge too much on the lives and well-being of other people. Applied, however, to “social space” considerations, it gets damned bad damned fast.

If it becomes widely perceived that there is no effective “downside” to the sorts of free-rider comportment which draw from the commons without the sorts of contributions that maintain and/or improve those resources which make up the commons, then “the tragedy of the commons” is going to screw things up with grim inevitability.

Mr. Smith, in his “Gallatin Universe” plenum*, holds that public disapprobation – made effectively impossible to evade by way of the Confederation’s ubiquitous information technology – would function as the negative reinforcement required to give the parasite pause to think and (by way of enlightened self-interest) act in what our “Liberal” brethren might characterize as a socially responsible fashion.

Like Mr. Kratman, I’m not so sure about that. I am myself not much inclined to give the proverbial middlin’ damn about the opinions of most people – as long as they cannot (or do not try to) enforce their opinions upon me.

I do not myself place much value upon their discretionary faculties, and as I grow older my assessment of the intelligence and discriminatory capabilities of “other people” inexorably becomes such that I have lately begun to wonder how most of my fellow human beings can maintain that state of awareness required to prevent incontinence of stool and urine.

To the extent that I respond to the expectations of “other people,” it seems increasingly that it is only to prevent them from pestering me.

This being the case, the “pester” factor must be considered in light of the incentive it provides for human beings to function in social interactions, and how it goes beyond the pure disapproval that finds expression in *The Probability Broach*.

But is civil government really the agency to handle the sorts of public health issues about which Mr. Kratman criticizes libertarianism?

Look at the profession of medicine, in which secondary gain has long provided the necessary incentive for physicians and surgeons to practice caritas (we don’t do “pro bono publico” the way the shysters do; we use the Latin word for “charity” because when you treat people for free, it sure as hell isn’t “for the public good” but rather an indulgence in the charitable impulse).

This still-prevalent aspect of the canons of the medical profession has been exploited by the politicians and bureaucrats who administer Medicaid.

It should be understood that unless a doctor runs his practice as a “Medicaid mill,” undertaking billing methods which can and should be characterized as fraudulent, he cannot even keep his doors open – cannot pay rent, office expenses, the wages of his staff, or get his own living – seeing the “clients” of Medicaid.

Every time a doctor in private practice sees a patient on Medicaid, HE IS LOSING MONEY. It costs to deliver medical care, and Medicaid has never in my lifetime ever “reimbursed” me enough to compensate me for the costs I have sustained in the course of seeing one of their clients.

Every damned time an American physician or surgeon in private practice takes care of a Medicaid patient, he’s doing it as caritas.

Charity. What the federal and state governments are doing by way of the Medicaid program is preying upon doctors in private practice. “Reimbursing” them what the politicians and bureaucrats know – full well – are amounts that cannot permit these doctors to sustain their practices while telling their clients that this is an “entitlement,” something which the Medicaid client is supposed, by right, to receive.

What we have is something “in the commons” – the charitable provision of medical care by doctors who have to run their practices as small businesses, and who are aided by the invidious government “regulation” of their profession through occupational licensing so as to enforce a constrained market on doctors’ customers – which is being exploited by rent-seeking politicians to the detriment of that resource and therefore damaging society as a whole.

The negative consequences for the politicians is effectively nil. Admittedly, Medicaid (and Medicare, which has achieved the same status in terms of payment falling below the level at which it compensates doctors even for the costs sustained much less offering profit above and beyond the expenses he must shoulder) is economically non-viable, and must inevitably come crashing into ruin within the next few years.

This is one of the reasons for Obamacare, which at gunpoint forces the “uninsured” into the health care insurance risk pool, making available their money for the plunder required to keep the government’s “entitlement” programs afloat for a while longer.

But “years from now” means – to the politician and the bureaucrat – “after I get re-elected” and “after I get promoted” respectively.

In short, there’s no reason for them to give a flying fuck about the long run for (as Keynes so magnificently and arrogantly put it) “in the long run we are all dead.”

Inasmuch as the officers of civil government – which Mr. Kratman extols as the ONLY agency in society capable of overcoming the selfishness of the idiosyncratic and cantankerous individual – have institutionalized the pillage of the commons in this and myriad other ways, what possible mechanism can prevent the “free rider” phenomenon from bringing American society down in ruins?

Bad enough that the irresponsible individual citizen should play the “free rider” game. But when the supposed STEWARDS of the common weal are fucking things up as a matter of policy, is this not orders of magnitude worse?

The fatal presumption to which Mr. Kratman (and most other conservatives) succumb is their trust in the possibility that the officers of civil government, both elected and appointed, can or will fulfill those duties conducive to the preservation of the commons when, in fact, these parasitic megalomaniac rolling sons of bitches HAVE NEVER DONE SO.

Both “Liberals” and conservatives tend to view civil government as a marvelous mechanism to accomplish Really Good Stuff, and as a result want the officers of government to act in realms of endeavor apart from the mere exercise of the police power.

Has experience, however, shown us that these myrmidons sucking at the taxpayer’s throat ever done their job without inflicting so much collateral damage in the process that the end result wasn’t intolerably worse?

The point of Mr. Smith’s arguments on this issue seem (to me) to be that such rigorous constraints upon civil government are required to prevent it from becoming malignantly metastatic and killing the society it purports to serve that persons such as Mr. Kratman would be incapable of recognizing it as government in any sense with which he is familiar, and which he would therefore condemn as “anarchy.”

To address the “free rider” phenomenon – and epidemiological adversities – with the application of civil government is entirely too much like engaging a painful but uninfected ingrown toenail with an above-the-knee amputation.

The question for Mr. Kratman is when and where is civil government NECESSARY? As we have seen again and again, when the officers of civil government reach into areas where there is not absolute dire necessity (and not “necessity” by their self-seeking, self-aggrandizing lights), they inevitably fuck things up horribly.


* See http://tinyurl.com/2e3re9d

65. El Neil - July 23, 2010

Robert LeFevre (otherwise know as Prof. Bernardo de la Paz) cured me of the free riders question once and for all with an example and a question.

The block you live on needs a street light, among other things, as a deterrent to crime. You go around from door to door collecting money to raise such a light because the city government won’t do it or (happy thought) there is no city government.

One old curmudgeon won’t kick in. If the light gets put up, he will benefit from it without having paid for it. So now comes LeFevre’s question. What value are you seeking, here, the power and satisfaction of forcing the old guy to cough up his “fair” share — or do you want the light?

Fact is, if he’s a _real_ curmudgeon, you may have to black out the part of your light that would otherwise shine in his window. I know more than one individual who acquired an air rifle because the city wouldn’t show him such a courtesy.

What is it that you _really_ want?

66. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

You’re assuming a trust I don’t believe I’ve given any evidence for holding. I don’t trust those we have in the slightest. Even in my preferred timocracy, I still wouldn’t trust them much. Everything decays, everything rots, and you’re projecting your own views onto me if you think that I think differently.

That doesn’t really matter, however, since the three problems I mentioned remain and, L. Neil’s badly misplaced comment about immaturity nothwithstanding, I have no evidence – I have seen no credible, cogent arguments for the proposition – that the libertarian society can or will be able to deal with them.

And those are the three things where civil government is necessary. To support them requires all the things that will eventually metastacize into just what you say. So what? My great-great-great grandchildren have to have a revolution so my grandchildren are not victims of plague? Of foreign conquest? Of enslavement? It’s a fair deal to me.

67. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

When we’re speaking of societal defense, what’s your evidence that it would only be such a tiny minority? It would not. There are far too many shits in the world for that. Or are we going to rely on the newish Marxist sleight of hand that it is only our rotten society that makes people bad?

By the way, that’s, frankly, a terrible – dare I say it? I dare, I dare: immature, even puerile – analogy. The numbers are wrong. The immediacy is off. The threat is different in kind and in magnitude. The expense of the one is trivial compared to the other.

And, in the event of foreign invasion, shall we drive those who didn’t contribute across the front lines? Or shall we pull the line back and, at gunpoint, to be sure, ensure that those who didn’t contribute remain on the wrong side, which is the nearest analogy to blacking out a portion of the light?

68. El Neil - July 23, 2010

Tom, I haven’t been following this thread closely — been embroiled in a battle elsewhere over _my_ intellectual property rights that a flock of little criminals wished to expropriate — but you are making a choice for other people in this situation that you aren’t entitled to make.

Instead of whining that libertarianism won’t work (something, with all due respect, that you don’t know anything about) use your ingenuity to find a way to _make_ it work. It isn’t magic, it won’t solve 100% of all problems, and it can do nothing without minds and hands behind it.

Make your own credible, cogent arguments for the fact that you own your own life — because that’s all that libertarianism amounts to — unless you prefer wearing a dog collar for the amusement of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi (or insert the Republican of your choice, if you prefer).

The metastasis has already occurred, and we are five minutes (or five months) away from the worst of all possible worlds. You have to decide what kind of a neighbor you are.

Or is that view too “immature”: for you?

69. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

Yes, it’s too immature.

By the way, what choice do you believe I’m making for others?

Why waste my time on something I consider doomed ab initio, intellectual flawed in many ways in parallel to Marxism, a baseless fantasy, doomed in every sense; not going to happen anyway but with a trivial life expectancy if it did?

Five months? Doubt it. And if so, we revolt. But if we do, the result won’t be a libertarian paradise.

70. El Neil - July 23, 2010

Tom expostulates, “When we’re speaking of societal defense, what’s your evidence that it would only be such a tiny minority?”

The Maquis. The Viet Cong. The Mujahideen. our current enemies du jour. Tiny groups who have driven off more numerous and powerful invaders. Please get some education, Tom. You might begin with the fact, established by biologists in the 60s, that an invader needs to outnumber the defenders ten to one to make victory even a remote possibility.

Animals, defending their own territory, have four times the effect that an invading animal does, and this applies to birds, mammals, and even some reptiles.

As for matters of “public health”, even the briefest reading of the history of such activities reveals that what the state actually wants is power, and that the wellbeing of the populace usually has very little to do with it. The state begins by digging graves and buying body bags.

If you understand anything about Legionnaire’s Disease or AIDS, you’ll know that what the authorities seek first is the _appearance_ of a solution and that reality counts for nothing. Government, as LeFevre said, is a disease masquerading as its own cure, and that was never more the case than with public health.

71. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

By the way, I don’t own my own life. My wife, my children, and my grandchildren all have claims on it – by my choice and by what I believe is right – greater than mine. My country does, as well, and, again, by my own choice.

That, by the way, is another image in my mind when I think of libertarianism; someone who’s abandoned every obligation but to self, and then finds himself fighting alone like a cornered rat.

72. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

More stinkers of analogies, indicative of someone who deludes himself that he has an education on the matter. Since you patently do not, Mil History, 101: The maquis were generally useless; the Viet Cong could deal with us – civilized, weak, us – but could not have dealt with the SS or the FMSH, and neither could the current Muj, when the enemy is perfectly content with enslavement or extermination.

The next time a biologist makes an correct operational or strategic judgement will likely be the first. Mil History 102: How many men in Caesar’s army, in Gaul? How many Gauls? How many Spaniards with Cortez and Pizarro. How many Aztecs and Incas? How many Brits in India? How many Indians? Really, LN, that kind of military ignorance is…distressing to witness.

(By the way, appropos of nothing in particular, you might want to nose around a bit and see if you really want to toss around military aphorisms with me.)

73. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

Also, you were aware, were you not, that the Viet Cong, in good part, and NVA, pretty much entirely, were conscripted forces? What do you imagine it says about libertarians rallying to defense that the subjects of a totalitarian regime rallied to the national defense? Just as a logical matter, I mean?

74. El Neil - July 23, 2010

“[B]y my choice and by what I believe is right”.

When you understand that what you’ve just said is a contradiction, you may be fit company to converse with.

It may help you to know that no libertarian has “abandoned every obligation”. No such obligation exists to begin with, that an individual doesn’t willingly and explicitly accept. I owe no loyalty to a country that doesn’t deserve it. That blathering socialist blowhole Jack Kennedy was wrong. What my country can do for me is to leave me the fuck along, and it if won’t, then it’s just another obstacle to get past.

If you were wiser, Tom, you’d know that cornered rats fight pretty well and make a very bad analogy when you’re trying to make somebody look bad.

I think the problem is that you’re just not man enough for libertarianism, and it makes me wonder why you’re on this site — unless you like to be abused. I know a lot of socialist sites that would fine your input invaluable.

That’s enough for now. Time to go back to work.

75. Tom Kratman - July 23, 2010

Cornered rats die, LN, when faced with greater force. If you were smarter, you would know that. But if you were smarter, you likely wouldn’t have devoted your life to an unrealizable, impractical fantasy.

And, frankly, by any non-circularly reasoned measure, I’m pretty comfortable that I’m a lot more of a man than you are. For example, even leaving aside the Ranger tab and the CIB, I can face the real world while you hide in a fantasy world.

76. al perez - July 23, 2010

“By my own choice,,,” is the ultimate libertarian statement. Don’t worry, I made the same choice and will continue to stick to it.

My reason for supporting libertarianism is that the barbarians are in Congress and the White House, the halls of our legislatures and the governors’ mansions and in our city councils.

Again and again, I keep saying, it may be that we cannot achieve a perfectly free society this side of the Second Coming of the Carpenter King. That does not mean we should stop striving for it. We can make a much freer society than the one we are in now.

I have been teaching since 1976. Many of my students over the years have chosen military careers or at least done their hitch. I have always felt that those who have completed their time in the military and the vast majority of us who did not serve in the military owe it to those who are serving to create a society worthy of the sacrifices they are making.

I happen to think that working for a more libertarian society than the one we have now is the way to do this.

A couple of weeks after the Americans won the Battle of Mogadishu (the raiders successfully seized the people they were after and inflicted about 50-60 to one casualties on the enemy people we were fighting) President Clinton pulled American forces out of Somalia and wasted the deaths of our young men there, Somalia still burns and i have been told that the lack of resolve shown there is one of the reasons Al Qaida made the series of terrorist attacks it claims credit for that culminated in the 9-11 attacks.

Our enemies have learned, you don’t have to beat American soldiers, beat the American Congress.

The men of Athens, Tennessee came home to have to rise in arms against corrupt local government. We deal with police officials who view the Constitution as an obstacle to overcome, not the ultimate law they must enforce. Chicago and other American cities are heading towards the chaos that reigns in Ciudad Juarez because of political corruption. We live with politicians who incite fear and bigotry, then punish people for trying to solve the problems they ignored while inciting fear and bigotry.

To not try to fix this would be as big a betrayal of your service, Tom, and that of millions of men and women going back to Concord Bridge as Clinton’s waste of Shugert and Gordon’s sacrifice. I happen to see working towards a more libertarian system than the one we have now as the best way to repay that service.

I think we can agree that working to “fulfill the promise of the American Revolution” is a worthy goal and refrain from exchanging personalities with people who address this goal differently than we would choose.

77. Ken Whittet - July 23, 2010

Has anyone here read Michael Williamsons’ novel “Freehold”. It addresses some of the issues debated here about how a libertarian society would deal with the FMSH. Personally I have a lot of respect for both El Neil and Tom Kratman and it saddens me to see the “hitting” going on here as it’s called on Baen’s Bar.

78. Ken Whittet - July 24, 2010

Then again, I should be one to talk about “hitting”. I did kinda get into a pissing contest with KW Jeter on Facebook last week. Mr. Jeter unfriended me and I called him a fucking troll. Over politics of course.

79. DoesNotMatter - July 24, 2010

“Freehold” solving the problem of the FMSHinvolves nukes buried well in advance on foreign soil which are either used as, well, nukes or deterrents towards reprisals. And that are the low casuality events.

That is not how a libertarian solves FMSH problems but how an ruthless asshole solves such problems if he doesn’t happen to have an FMSH of his own to call.

The asshole in question just happens to select himself as defender in chief for a libertarian society.

80. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

Fixing it, Al, is one thing. But fixing it, going back to the Constitution as it was (with, oh, say, the 13th through 15th Amendments included) is different in kind from simply tossing out government completely. And, because of those three legitimate, irreplaceable government functions I mentioned, that means that government will be somewhat expensive and will always be a threat. But it will still be a lesser threat than the other three, provided we watch it carefully…and realize we may have to water the tree from time to time.

81. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

My former law partner worked on the Freehold Constitution with Mike, Ken. No, I didn’t buy it, either.

82. Robert - July 24, 2010

Problem (big, big problem): If Congress actually use this then they had better not change it in any way whatsoever (good luck with that), or they will be guilty of raping the author, of being sticky-fingered rodents, of being collectivist scum, etc, etc.

That being the case, it is obviously not meant as a serious proposal. What is it then? A self-promoting wank. But then one looks around and wonders how much else of LNS’s oevre is the same and the sad conclusion has to be: all of it.

83. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 24, 2010

Tom- As I have said elsewhere, I PREFER a Libertarian society. I could live in the Federation of Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”, or even the Freehold, if need be, but they have problems, as well. I don’t agree with your assertion that those three MUST be handled by government only. The Vector problem is the hang-up. The first two, while I respect your service, are NOT incapable of individual solutions. The third, MAY need an overseer. But I THINK we can do it Libertarian style, I just ain’t quite worked out how!

I am, as I have said before, a fan of yours, Ringo, and Williamson, even though ALL of you espouse certain things I oppose. Conversing back and forth with you, I KNOW that your characters sometimes support things you don’t, and I never assume that all of a character’s views are the author’s. And to be honest, I enjoy trying to deduce the areas of agreement with your characters from reading ALL of your work. Neil does not take the Muslim menace as seriously as I do, and NOWHERE near as seriously as you do. (just an example). fortunately for me, I can enjoy the works of BOTH of you. Whatever happens, never stop it, either of you. It would be a much more boring world if we all agreed on everything.

Al- I agree with your assertion that no matter the problems inherent in the final result may be, working TOWARDS a more Libertarian society is definitely not going to hurt us as much as lying back and letting the current crop of dictators-in-waiting rape us will be.

84. al perez - July 24, 2010

Robert-LNS earns a living turning his policy ideas into novels and essays. He has also been active in American politics trying to get his ideas turned into policy, very often going against the tide to do this.

As much as I respect you as a gadfly who forces me to think out what I believe in and therefor make sure I’ve really thought out my opinions and am not running off at the mouth, I have to ask, what do you have to add to the discussion besides taking cheap shots?

Neale (and everybody else) I do favor a perfect libertarian society. I also realize that several thousand years worth of inertia have inclined mankind to different forms of tyranny.
So my choices are: do I curl up in a little ball because creating a free society goes against the odds? or do I strive to make the US and hopefully the whole world a freer and more decent place, realizing that I won’t achieve the perfection of freedom I want for me and those who share my love of freedom, but getting a lot closer to it than the mess I walked in on?

“I know not what course others may take, but for myself give me liberty or die mother frakker, die!” (apparent translation problems of P. Henry’s original line)

85. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

As I said, Neale, no one has ever shown me a way for those three to be handled well – and they must be handled well; the costs of failure are too high – except by government. I’m always willing to entertain solutions – not silly ones like LN’s streetlight analogy, of course, but something reasonably well thought out – and I have yet to see any that convince me.

You will, by the way, when you get to The Lotus Eaters, see a private (at least in origin) military securing a nation. Note, however, that that nation is small and that they take it over. You will also see that same private military engaged in defense against internal barbarians. Note, however, how bloody minded and simply vicious they are about it.

86. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 24, 2010

al- exactly MY point! As an aside, may I steal your intellectual property (“I know not what course others may take, but for myself give me liberty or die mother frakker, die!” ) for crass commercial reasons, and install them on T-shirts? Be advised, if I do it, and actually make any money, you will get a share. Also, I may un-censor the statement and render it in the original redneckgon and print some as I know not what course others may take, but for myself give me liberty or die mother fucker, die!” If interested, give me a call or E-mail.
Neale (strw) Osborn

PS- My policy regarding Robert/Bob/asshole is “Ignoring you is bliss!” Hence my failure to respond to his idiocy. Heated argument is at least intellectually honest. Nothing but attack and whine isn’t.

87. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 24, 2010

Tom- sorry, our posts crossed. My problem is that at this time, I actually sorta agree with you on the vector problem (and I don’t want to!) I still think private citizens, properly inculcated in freedoms ideals, would do the first two quite well. As to Carrera’s handling of barbarians both foreign AND domestic, well, I am sure I can guess at THAT without the book. (Although I DO intend to read it the moment I can afford it. Shameless plug for Tom- agree or disagree with his politics, his books ARE a good read. And when he let’s the little bastard out, his sense of humor is as twisted as the best of ours.)

88. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

Ummm…Neale, who’s inculcating them? Government schools? Who’s paying and how do we raise the money (again!). Home school? Are they being inculcated in society’s ideals or in the ideals, if one can call them that, of the importance of blood over society? Seen that; it doesn’t work for beans.

Indeed, absent an overarching polity and society, where do people’s loyalties actually go? Every place, nearly, I’ve been around the world (and that’s quite a bit of the world), their loyalties go naturally to their own blood and to hell with everyone else and everything else. That’s Albania, Neale, and the Arabian Peninsula. That’s Africa, under the rule of the kleptocrats. (And our Congress, corrupt as many and possibly most members may be, is still nothing like the rulers of post-colonial Africa.)

89. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

T-Shirt Design:

Front side:

I know not what course others may take…

Picture of Patrick Henry

But as for me, give me liberty or…

Back side:

Die, Motherfucker, die!

90. Ward Griffiths - July 24, 2010

Tom Says:
And those are the three things where civil government is necessary. To support them requires all the things that will eventually metastacize into just what you say. So what? My great-great-great grandchildren have to have a revolution so my grandchildren are not victims of plague? Of foreign conquest? Of enslavement? It’s a fair deal to me.

You’re safe, -MAYBE- your grandkids are safe, their grandkids are left for the feral poodles. Check the stats, even you aren’t safe from Plague (the best defenses don’t come from government). I’m pretty sure you’re safe from conquest or enslavement (and so are your descendants so far), because some folks are illegally bearing arms. That could change any minute (fresh rulings against RKBA), and them what back the tyrants shouldn’t get in the way, collateral damage is such a popular term when the government uses it and we aim better and it doesn’t happen except in gubmint-supported “news”.

91. Neale (spelled the right way) Osborn - July 24, 2010

Tom- I DO happen to home school. and TOTALLY oppose the government internment camps mistakenly called “Public schools” (See Neal Boortz, “Somebody’s Gotta Say It”) As to the rest of your points, well I’ve never said it would work easily OR overnight. Personally, I’d like to see a few Libertarians get elected to the House and Sentate and propose a few things. as they get debated, we might see some changes in the American thought patterns. Eventually, we might see some get enabled, succeed, and lead to more of them. As people learn to take full responsibility for themselves AND their actions, a truly Libertarian society will develope. Eventually, we’ll learn to solve it ourselves and let the government wither on the vine. Do I think we could hold a revolution today, declare this wonderful new Libertarian society, and see it blossom immediately with the entire country saying “WOW!! I never thought of that. I like it!”? NO. We would have to make the switch over years, possibly even decades. But what’s the harm in trying?

Design suggestion, from T. Kratman- LOOVE IT! Well, Al???

92. Ward Griffiths - July 24, 2010

From Al:

Neale (and everybody else) I do favor a perfect libertarian society. I also realize that several thousand years worth of inertia have inclined mankind to different forms of tyranny.
So my choices are: do I curl up in a little ball because creating a free society goes against the odds? or do I strive to make the US and hopefully the whole world a freer and more decent place, realizing that I won’t achieve the perfection of freedom I want for me and those who share my love of freedom, but getting a lot closer to it than the mess I walked in on?

“I know not what course others may take, but for myself give me liberty or die mother frakker, die!” (apparent translation problems of P. Henry’s original line)


From me:

That about does the job. Ghod nose I’m an atheist and yet prepared to die for the freedom of myself and those who survive me. I’m not planning on dying, but there is a disparity in arms, we have more single-shot weapons, they have the belt-fed and area weapons.

93. al perez - July 24, 2010

Dying for freedom: last choice.
Killing for freedom: second to last choice (but emotionally satisfying i must admit).
Working hard to peacefully achieve freedom: best choice (might get tedious, but you pay for what you get and people trying to take short cuts frequently get short changed).

as for taking on long term struggles: Back when 9-11 happened I warned my 15 year old high school students we would finish “War on Terrorism” in their great grandchildren’s time. (and I was deliberately being overoptimistic.)

I am of the opinion and also believe (two different things) that it will take as long to get a society free enough to feel good about passing the struggle for freedom on to the next generation.

My ancestors fought a 700 year long war against the Moros and a four hundred year war against the Apache. A multigeneration struggle for freedom is OK by me.

94. al perez - July 24, 2010

Oh yeah, and going back to original point of thread, repealing BO’s handiwork when he leaves looks to be a good place to start.

95. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

No, Ward, my great grandkids may have to fight. I may have to fight. My children may have to fight. “The tree of liberty…”

That, however, does not mean that we can dispense with the prime method of resisting _foreign_ (what is it about libertarians, cosmopolitans, and many marxists that they think the world ends at the end of their very short reach?) oppression. I, and my issue, are not safe from foreign conquest by virtue of some clandestine arms. We are safe because we keep a large, effective, and amazingly expensive military.

96. Tom Kratman - July 24, 2010

Neale, there’s a great leap between “I never said it would be easy” and “this is how we do it.” I’m still waiting for the answer to the latter and, again, no libertarian has given me answers that are credible.

97. al perez - July 24, 2010

Maybe it is a good thing that the fight to be free (or as free as human nature permit) is an ongoing multigenerational struggle.
“What we obtain to cheaply we value too lightly.” To be honest I think we have a long way to go for the difference in what the more libertarian and less libertarian participants of this discussion want will justify a parting of the ways.

Undoing BO’s handiwork is a good common goal to strive for between now and then. also repealing gun (and knife!) control, attempts to censor free speech and press, and other assaults on freedom should keep us entertained and too busy to fight among ourselves.

98. Eudyptes Diabolicus - July 24, 2010

Repealing everything under Obambi sure sounds like a good idea until you realize, if you actually think about it, that it sets a horrible precedent. It would be about as bad, but not quite, as criminalizing policy.

What this would open the door for is to let the new set of elected officials simply strike down laws willy nilly. Hypothetically what if the klu klux clan, as an extreme example, obtained a supermajority of seats? They could strike down those pesky voter’s rights laws. Jim Crow? Back in you go.

BTW, have you thought through the inherent flaw in your statement about needing manliness to be truly libertarian? If a true libertarian society requires people to be manly enough for it and someone who has the CIB and could hack ranger school isn’t manly enough, then by your own argument there won’t be enough people who are able to be truly libertarian.

Congratulations! You have succesfully argued that a libertarian society as you propose is impossible.

99. al perez - July 25, 2010

Never associated need for freedom with testosterone level. Admittedly those with a willingness to enforce rights by force have more freedom than those who won’t fight, assuming they show decent regard for others and aren’t bullies. For every Jim Courtright there is a Luke Short.

Please note that as far as I can figure Obama just signed legislation repealing legislation Bill Clinton signed repealing the Glass Steagall Act.

Repealing legislation and executive orders is a well established tradition when the bums get thrown out. If ED wants to take a little more time to make sure we are acting prudently when repealing BO’s act than the original prompt for this thread suggests who am I to argue?

Big Question, If the Birthers are right, is BO”S signature on executive orders,treaties, pacts, appointments and even laws valid? Was this El Neil’s original point, or at least one of them, ya think?

100. Tom Kratman - July 25, 2010

Eud. Dia.

Some of it, the money already spent, for example, _can’t_ be repealed; it’s gone. For some more or it, contracts have been signed…and there I thought libertarians were just death on violating contracts. And what about the T-Bills sold under and in support of these laws? Do we repudiate them? And what of laws or interpretations of laws, amounting to laws in themselves, that arose during the pertinent time period, even if not emanating from the White House or Congress? Goodbye McD v. Chicago.

Speaking of which, it’s too early to speak about repealing anything important until we see how the Supreme Court goes on the suits against ObamaCare. This could be mostly moot.

101. Ward Griffiths - July 25, 2010

Tom, _I_ didn’t sign those fookin’ contracts, I am not responsible for the debts of those dickheads I voted against or the debts of their predecessors who put me in debt before I was born.

I have no problem with repudiating all such “contracts”.

And, no, maintaining a large and overpriced/subcompetent military across the planet isn’t keeping anybody safe. My nephews can’t defend this country if they’re stuck over in Afghanistan and Iraq fighting with people who never previously had reason to hate Americans when this country is invaded by China and/or Brazil. They’re stuck away on wars of aggression (I didn’t tell them to join the reserves, they were just patriotic jerks looking for some weekend cash), so I have to defend their kids if some country other than the US feels like expanding its influence. Good thing I’m a better marksman than either of them.

102. Tom Kratman - July 25, 2010

Ward, that is such egregious bullshit one scarcely knows where to start. In the first place, they are your contracts. Doesn’t matter if you voted for any of the people who signed them or voted them into law or not. If you don’t want to be responsible, leave the country. If you don’t want to leave the country, you’re responsible.

I recommend Albania.

For the rest, “Offensive” is a principle of war, the defense is not.

Alternatively, you can stay here and whine, and mourne, and lament that the libertarian program is a dead letter. Really, doesn’t matter in the slightest, because precisely none of it has a prayer of coming to pass.

103. al perez - July 25, 2010

Actually parts are coming to pass. For example, three states have adopted Vermont Carry, just for a start. FCC censorship of vulgarity has been tossed out as unconstitutional for another.
i don’t expect prime time air wave TV to be flooded with unpixilated full frontal nudity or people yelling out fuck, but maybe the dialogue in the movie Chaplin where he gets into why he needs to make Modern Times won’t get censored out because Diane Lane flashed her right nipple during it for more than a tenth of a second.

I’m sure you’ve read Munn’s The Lost Legion. In it a centurion is trapped in a pit. Others have been trapped before him and have dug hand and footholds to escape. They died before reaching the top, but each has done his share so that one day…

The progressives, as they now call themselves, bragged that since Teddy Roosevelt’s day they have been working to achieve a national health care plan. Shouldn’t we work just as hard for freedom?

And I still say Tom, even if you do not agree with the full libertarian agenda, there is a lot we can work on together before we get to the parting of ways politically.

totally the auditory organ of a pachyderm, the typo farting of the ways, nearly dot into that last sentence. comic imagery comes to mind but i don’t know what to do with it.

104. Tom Kratman - July 25, 2010

Those aren’t especially libertarian things, Al, and one begs leave to doubt that libertarianism, or the Libertarian Party, had that much, if any, beyond the slightest thing to do with them. If anything, our hope is not in libertarianism, but in demographics, as the left breeds itself almost out of existence and discovers that propagandization in the schools – where they’ve set their single greatest emphasis – is a poor substitute for aculturalization in the home and society

105. al perez - July 25, 2010

Tom, so you’re saying love of freedom doesn’t belong to any one party? hat liberals, conservatives and moderates, have some pro liberty ideas and that they also have some anti liberty ideas? What would you call a person who supports pro liberty ideas regardless of they’re being right, left, or center and opposese ideas antithetical to freedom regardless of where they came from?

You’re right thought, there aren’t that many libertarians per se, and they are often forced into coalitions with either right or left on specific issues. Keeps you on your toes, thinking for yourself, and disinclined to vote straight party ticket (or even gay party ticket. Sorry, had to go for pun.)

106. Tom Kratman - July 25, 2010

I’d probably call him a one issue candidate, Al, and therefore unelectable.

And that was a stinker of a pun.

107. R.D. Bartucci - July 25, 2010


Eudyptes had written:

“Repealing everything under Obambi sure sounds like a good idea until you realize, if you actually think about it, that it sets a horrible precedent. It would be about as bad, but not quite, as criminalizing policy.

“What this would open the door for is to let the new set of elected officials simply strike down laws willy nilly.”

Such is effectively done whenever there has been sufficient turn-around in the Boot-on-Your-Neck Party that the faction responsible for a particular policy has been sufficiently hammered down to become incapable of putting up adequate resistance to prevent it.

Whenever the Republicans or the National Socialists accumulate a two-thirds majority in the House and a cloture-invoking dominance in the Senate, they simply roll their agenda over their nominal opponents like an avalanche, and “horrible precedent” be damned.

This has happened relatively rarely in America’s history, but it has happened, and the machinations following the election of such a Congress – the first “peacetime billion dollar Congress,” for example, the Republican-dominate 51st (1889-1891), as well as the current catastrophe, the National Socialist 111th Congress (2009-2011) – invariably turn out to inflict massive damage upon the nation.

Haven’t we seen, often enough, the politicians of the Permanent Incumbency claiming that they have a “mandate” from the electorate, and therefore the blessings of the Pee-pul to do any friggin’ thing they please? And then without even the fiction of an opposition to restrain them, they go berserk and overturn as much of their rivals’ work as they can possibly manage.

Certainly, there is an argument for consistency, for predictability, for avoiding sudden dislocating jerks and jags in the development and implementation of government policy, but that goes out the window whenever one group of grasping sons-of-bitches gets so thoroughly on top – as the National Socialists had, in November of 2008 – that they can get away with ramming their nail-studded baseball bat (the spikes upon which they’ve been sharpening for decades) right up the nation’s unlubricated ass.

What gives the impression of deliberation, discretion, or restraint among the governing class is nothing more than the simulacrum of dignity they maintain while champing frustratedly at the restrictions imposed upon them by political resistance.

Deprived of such resistance, they go absolutely bugfuck, and behave overtly like the pillaging, pilfering, extortionate criminals they’ve always been.

Reversing such an aggregation of depredations – hitting the “Reset” button on everything done by the 111th Congress – would, in fact, be of substantial benefit to the nation, especially as it would serve as an object lesson of sorts to both the public at large and the political class in particular, warning against over-reach.

The key to expunging Barry Soetoro from America’s statute books (and eventually from America’s history, except as an object lesson for election authorities to exercise the same due diligence as is daily demonstrated by a clerk at the local DMV office) is to recognize that the occupancy of the office of the nation’s chief magistrate by this criminal REQUIRES that his every action be treated as null and void.

Better that the palimpsest be erased completely and re-written.

And if he gets a Presidential Library – assuming he doesn’t spend the rest of his natural life, as he deserves, in a federal prison – let’s see about locating it in his native Mombasa.

108. Donald Qualls - July 26, 2010

Ken Valentine:

“Where you might get finely powdered Aluminum . . . I don’t know.”

First, the aluminum doesn’t need to be all that finely powdered, nor for that matter does the iron oxide once ignition is achieved (the reaction mostly takes place in liquid state anyway). That said, it used to be possible to buy “paint flake aluminum” to mix your own metal-flake paint (originally, to give UV degradation protection to the dope used to seal and tighten aircraft fabric, dating to the late 19th century and the early days of the dirigible), which is fine enough to work just fine in the mixture.

Igniting the stuff is harder — most folks find they need magnesium to get it started, though I’ve always wondered if the bare filament from a good sized incandescent light bulb would do the job (it’ll get about as hot as burning magnesium as the tungsten burns in air, and can be started on cue, remotely). OTOH, a highway flare will also do the job, and is easy to get…

109. jack - July 31, 2010

Tom,

> If you don’t want to be responsible, leave the country. If you don’t want to leave the country, you’re responsible.

I wonder if you feel the same way about the contracts someone signed with Genoveses (or whatever family claims your hood). Would you admonish your neighbors to leave the area or pay up and shut up?

110. Tom Kratman - July 31, 2010

I’m not sure where you came up with that analogy, Jack. I suspect my first impression – stinker – is right, but you may care to elaborate the equivalence you seem to be presuming between DC and the Capos.

I don’t know that any family claims Blacksburg, Va. If one does, I also don’t know that they were ever subject to a legal election, such that I or anyone would have any duty to them flowing from whatever benefits I and mine receive under the law. Are you presuming an illegal contract, illegal ab initio? If so, no, it’s void to begin with. Do you have a case that the contracts signed since January, 2009, were illegal to begin with?

111. Business For Sale Mallorca - October 29, 2010

Business For Sale Mallorca…

Freehold premises are hard to come by as Spanish property titles have usually been passed down through the family and can often be owned by several members of the family….