jump to navigation


Posted by Administrator in : Politics , trackback


The “land of the free” is in deep trouble — the deepest trouble since the War Between the States — not just economically, but politically and in every other way. Her greatest institutions are crumbling all around us.

In _DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis_, the acclaimed libertarian writer and thinker L. Neil Smith, author of over 30 liberty-related books and 50-year veteran of the freedom movement, strips this crisis to its essentials, offering solutions — sometimes “radical” (in the sense that they go straight to the root), more often simple common sense — resulting in a body of ideas that can elevate America to her former greatness, not in decades or years, but months.

Subjects covered in _DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis_ include:

[] Airport security and the TSA

[] America in space

[] Gay marriage

[] The Zero Aggression principle

[] The United Nations, terrorism, and torture

[] National defense

[] Why cities (and city governments) are obsolete

[] Global warming

[] Blood for oil

[] Intellectual property rights and internet freedom

[] Media reform

[] The rights of children

[] Limiting corporate power

[] The moral effects of taxation

[] Abortion

[] The War on (Some) Drugs

[] Feral banks

[] The rights of smokers

[] The myth of nimal rights

[] The truth about money

[] Why 1913 was the worst year in American history

>> If you’re feeling politically homeless these days;

>> If you’ve been hearing a lot about libertarianism lately, and you’re curious;

>> If you’re new to libertarianism and want to know what it’s really all about;

>> If you’re a libertarian candidate and need a campaign guide; or

>> If you just want to sort out the fakers from the real thing,

_DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis_ is the book for you!

And possibly a book that can change the course of history.


_DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy In A Time Of Crisis_is available at Amazon.com, B&N.com, and other outlets, in both “dead-tree” and electronic formats.


1. Neale Osborn - April 2, 2012

Love that Book-back!

2. Charles Fuller - April 2, 2012

Must have. Must have.
Information is Ammunition!

3. R.D. Bartucci - April 2, 2012

What are “nimal rights,” please?

4. Neale Osborn - April 3, 2012

“Animal Rights”

5. al perez - April 3, 2012

Animals by definition don’t have rights. We may owe it to ourselves, our God(s) (if we are believers), and our neighbors, to treat animals humanely lest we debase our humanity and learn to be cruel to people by being cruel to animals, but we don’t have any obligation to game, vermin or livestock.

6. al perez - April 3, 2012

Actually am a cat and dog person. And I do feel that a decent solicitude for the well being of “all creatures great and small”
is part of a good person’s nature. However, the maudlin insistence on trying to make “critters” into beings whose right equal or may even be superior to Homenis Sapiensis is immoral and a necessary part of any plan to devalue human liberty and rights.

7. R.D. Bartucci - April 3, 2012

I think animals DO have rights.

Just before I sit down to dinner, I read their rights to their remains.

“You have the right to just sit there. Try to wriggle off the plate and it’s gonna go even worse for you.”

The exercise of rights – including civil rights – has always got to be commensurate with a critter’s capacity (actual or potential) for moral agency.

Animals have no such capacity. At best, they’ve got instinct and conditioning, but no ability to examine by way of abstract reason the conduct of their actions in relation to sapient individuals with whom they interact.

They haven’t any moral responsibility or sentiment, and therefore cannot be trusted to function according to any standards of right and wrong that other sapient entities can appreciate and rely upon.

Willful cruelty to non-sapient living things isn’t even arguably immoral, but it’s sure as hell a red flag. Anybody displaying such an honest of their character has to be considered, ceteris paribus, to have similar inclinations – covert but credibly real – toward vulnerable sapient critters, and can be legitimately looked upon as teetering on the edge of undertaking violations of HUMAN rights.

Think of it as damned bad advertising on the part of the animal-tormentors, and presumptive diagnostic indicators for the rest of us.

8. Neale Osborn - April 4, 2012

WHEN and if a non-sapient being walks up, pulls out a chair, sits down at the table, and demands his/her right to be considered sapient, I’ll grant they have rights. Personally, I don’t tolerate cruelty towards animals. I think it’s the sign of a cowardly and weak individual, AND, since the animals DO feel pain, just plain wrong. If you own an animal and want it dead, shoot it. Don’t starve it to death, inflict the death of a thousand cuts, burn it to death, or any other protracted and painful method.

HOWEVER, NO ONE has the right to claim that an animal’s rights are to trump a human being’s (with aforementioned exception from above). Animals are food, transport, pets, clothing, or just there. They are not people.

9. Neale Osborn - April 4, 2012

That one should read “WHEN and if a FORMERLY non sapient being”

10. R.D. Bartucci - April 4, 2012

Mr. Osborn, with regard to the abject idiocy of any “claim that an animal’s rights are to trump a human being’s,” I’d like to note that no HUMAN BEING’s rights trump any other human being’s rights, either.

We’re all scarred by our encounters with Mrs. O’Connor’s writings here, aren’t we?

Ain’t no such thing as “conflicting rights.”

In any such rub, somebody’s got THE right, and the other guy (or guys) don’t have ANY right to that somebody’s property or liberty or life save as defined in contract, explicit or implicit.

I can still remember my first encounter with newspaperman and humorist H. Allen Smith, when I came across a paperback reprint of his 1946 novel *Rhubarb*, about a fractious tomcat acquiring by inheritance the ownership of a major league baseball team.

The title character was by no means a competent moral agent.

Indeed, being a tomcat with the disposition of a living buzzsaw, the juxtaposition of “moral” and “Rhubarb” could only amount to an extreme oxymoron.

So – of course – the cat’s property rights were exercised in trust by the critter’s eccentric owner’s publicist (and Smith’s viewpoint character) Eric Yeager.

After that, I not only wound up reading every damned thing by H. Allen Smith upon which I could get my hands but was guided by the gentleman to HIS beau ideal in the newspaper business, H. Allen Mencken.

From whose writings, I discovered, I had been scrupulously protected by the educrats responsible for the mismanagement of my primary and secondary educations.

In its way, *Rhubarb* determined my own personal favorite approach to the examination of “animal rights,” to the effect that my respect for any particular animal’s rights have over the decades been determined by how effectively he gets in there with his lefts and whatever else nature in fang and claw provides him, too.

Here, kitty, kitty, kitty. Give the nice man back his testicle and I promise you he won’t try to scare you ever again.

11. R.D. Bartucci - April 4, 2012

Damn. That’s “H.L. Mencken” (as in “Henry Louis”).

Yet another of those senior moments I’ve been getting for…

Hm. Can’t quite remember how long. Ain’t that the strangest thing?

12. al perez - April 4, 2012

Rights are based upon contractual relationships both formal and informal that are backed by sheer naked force. I have the absolute right, as long as I don’t violate other people’s rights, to do as I please.

Cats naturally understand this. However, since cats believe that their contract is “In exchange for the joy of being our slaves we will permit humans to serve us.” they are not a particularly good example. Catey reward us for spoiling them by being spoiled.ths pretend to be absolute live and let live libertarians, but in fact

13. Ward Griffiths - April 5, 2012

I have known few cats with any real regard for the zero aggression principle. Many of the fuzzy little sociopaths with which I’ve shared my life never hesitated to initiate force or fraud.

14. al perez - April 5, 2012

Cats are obligatory carnivores and highly specialized and evolved predators. They have little regard for authority (so your the boss, eh?) and disregard the privileges of alphas for claiming food and mates. I have yet to know a male cat that did not have teeth knocked out in a fight. The only reason they lose killing fights to dogs is because the dogs are too damn big to take.
And yet they are amazingly affectionate to children and the occasional privileged adult. Gotta love ‘em or they’ll scratch your eyes out.