Bob Ross January 9, 1995 1:271/145 Bob -- Since we appear to have wandered off the RTKBA topic, I thought I'd reply to you via FIDO. If you don't get this, be sure and let me know. :-) I suspect I'm not going to convince you of anything, and it doesn't matter whether I do, since my object is to round up those who agree with me, a proven political tactic which should work particularly well given the specific goal I have adopted -- to do to the Republicans what Norman Thomas did to the Democrats in 1928. On the other hand, explaining things to an intelligent dissenter is always a profitable exercise, and you'll have a better-informed basis in future for objecting to the stands Libertarians take on various issues. So we both make out. BOB> ... LP stand on income tax is the complete abolition of same BOB> ... in view of the current nature and cost of running a large, BOB> complex country like this one, no alternative is given ... You're right about our position, not just on income taxes, but on all taxation, wbich is nothing but theft. I note with interest your phrase "the current nature and cost of running a large, complex country". We're not talking about running a country at all. It runs itself very nicely, thanks to the free market system. We're talking about running a government, a very different proposition. It isn't up to us to suggest an alternative to stealing our property at gunpoint. It's up to those (like you, I assume) who want government to finance it by means we find acceptable. If I were running for President (because I =will= wage politics to end politics) I'd offer a transitional measure to reduce, during a 16-year double pair of Presidential terms (the only rational basis for such planning) the =total= of all taxes, federal, state, and local, to no more than 5% of any individual's income -- and provide =no= means of enforcement. If people are unwilling to support it voluntarily at that level, it means there's something wrong with the idea of government itself and, as Jefferson suggested, we should "provide new guards" for our future security. BOB> ... some aspects of the LP umbrella are more extreme than the BOB> median supporters of any party are willing to accept. Certain BOB> sex ... and drug related areas are anathema, whether you ... BOB> feel otherwise or not. Fringies ... have no real staying BOB> power, either politically or in the minds of the public. The public have been educated in government schools and further misinformed by government-approved mass media. It would be morally wrong (and fairly disgusting) to pander to misconceptions that have been forced on them all their lives by the state. Re-educating them is something that must be done as we're doing here, on a one-to-one basis, which takes courage, dedication and time. When I started in 1961, I figured it would take 75 years. We're halfway along that timeline, and I'm well satisfied with our progress. Once again, we're not talking about sex and drug related =areas= but about individual human beings with rights. I'm as straight as they come (in fact I voted for Colorado Proposition 2 in 1992 which aimed at keeping gays from claiming status as a protected class) and although I tried various drugs as a kid, haven't even used alcohol or nicotine for some time (I'm still a caffeine junkie). I hope my little girl believes me and never uses drugs. I also believe individuals have a right to pursue =any= form of sexual happiness they wish (as long as it doesn't forcibly interfere with anyone else's rights) and that no one has a right to interfere. They also have a right to destroy their lives with drugs. You and I have no obligation to take care of them afterward. It's important in this context to understand that to advocate the political liberty to do something is not the same thing as advocating the "something" itself. Unlike most former smokers, I believe people have an absolute right to light up and enjoy tobacco as long as they don't actually bother others with it. I certainly did for 30 years. They shouldn't be treated like they are now -- the way blacks in this country used to be treated. On the other hand, I never claimed smoking was good for anybody, I quit myself, and I hope my daughter never takes it up. Now should I lie to the public about what I believe is right? That would make me a Republican or Democrat and I've already taken considerable pains to differentiate myself from them. Should I stay out of politics altogether? Not bloody likely. I don't do my cause any good by lying about it or by rolling over and playing dead, and neither one is in my nature. As I've said before, "great men don't move to the center, great men =move the center=". Bob, there is really only =one= human right, and that is to remain unmolested by others as long as you leave them unmolested. If I wish to wear a silly hat, carry a gun, shove beans up my nose, screw ostriches, or worship Dorothy Gale of Kansas as a goddess, it's my business and nobody else's. Which is why I disagree with the next thing you say ... BOB> My main objection has been the ... collection, under the LP BOB> umbrella, of some very dissonant viewpoints. This, IMPO, tends BOB> to cause fragmentation of any possible support. These BOB> dissonant views may be legitimate, from your core viewpoint BOB> ... but that does not automatically make them acceptable to BOB> the broad public that you must gain support from. Bob, chattel slavery was quite "acceptable to the broad public" at one time, until certain stiff-necked, unpleasant sons-of-bitches made their minds up that it was evil and had to be stopped. They didn't give a rat's ass about Public Relations or poll numbers, they just went ahead and did what decency demanded. For us to mind each other's business, live each other's lives, steal each other's property, call the whole collection of evils "government" and claim we can't live without it -- that's not only evil, it's just plain insulting to the human mind and spirit. BOB> ... the LP has to lead from the front. To ask the public to BOB> support you ... and only then, will you do all the wonderful BOB> things the LP proposes. Or to put it another way, no guts, no BOB> glory. It seems to me the path I've chosen demands =more= guts, whether it wins any glory or not. It's the one path I recommend to those who want to look at themselves in the mirror every morning. As to going along with evil until I'm in a position to do something about it, this is what my first publisher demanded -- knowing perfectly well there would =never= come a day when I could break out of an established and profitable pattern without being dismissed as a mid-life snapper and ruining my wonderful phony career. Instead, I gave that publisher the heave-ho and established myself as a radical from the outset. It's taken a long time, but as a relatively prosperous writer, and now as a radio performer, I have the freedom to do exactly what I wish and have won thousands of converts to the movement by doing nothing more than being myself, writing and saying whatever pleased me at the time. Note that the next quoted section is from me ... LNS> Guess you should know that we begin with the premise of LNS> absolute self-ownership. That, in turn, is expressed LNS> politically as an absolute determination never to _initiate_ LNS> force against anyone or allow it to be initiated against us. LNS> If you disagree with the premise, that means one thing. If LNS> you disagree with the logic by which we went from there to LNS> each of our conclusions, that's quite another. BOB> Your last paragraph above bothers me ... if that statement is BOB> the basis of all the LP proposes, I am dismayed. I request BOB> more elucidation ... As the statement stands, I cannot, and do BOB> not, agree, and do not support such absolutism as it stands, BOB> narrow as it appears. I'm not sure what statement you refer to, as there are several in that paragraph, so I'll try to break them down -- "divide the question" -- and see where that get us. 1.) " ... we begin with the premise of absolute self-ownership." This statement is, indeed, the basis of all the LP proposes. If you believe someone or something else owns you, you've got problems the LP can't handle. If you find the concept religiously offensive, I'd reply that we have an agreement -- the First Amendment -- under which religious beliefs are not permitted to affect public policy. Blow that and you blow the Bill of Rights. Blow the Bill of Rights, and there goes the entire Constitution, along with the government organized under its authority. That was the deal the Federalists made with the anti-Federalists, and =this= Libertarian means to see that it stands. What you believe is your business, but I can't be expected to live as if I agree with you and if you try to force me to, I'll fight back. The Founding Fathers -- who were not uniformly religious at all -- understood this perfectly. 2.) ... an absolute determination never to _initiate_ force against anyone or allow it to be initiated against us. This is a restatement of the Non-Aggression Principle, the basic =political= principle of Libertarianism, the means by which its basic =moral= principle concerning self-ownership is carried out. Note the emphasis on the word "initiate". We are not pacifists. We just believe in never =starting= it, which is about as American an idea as you can come up with. 3.) If you disagree with the premise, that means one thing. It means that we probably can't agree about anything, since we disagree about the basic nature of the universe, humanity's place in it, and the proper way we should relate to one another. 4.) If you disagree with the logic by which we went from there to each of our conclusions, that's quite another. Because we can profitably (and enjoyably) argue about things like mimimum wage, SDI, revolvers versus automatics -- and the best strategy and tactics for bringing America back to the Bill of Rights -- as long as we see eye to eye on the basics. If we agree that each of us owns his own life and should have full control over it, if we agree that neither of us has a right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against the other, if we agree that the Bill of Rights is the highest law of the land and should be enforced stringently against politicians and other public officials who violate it, what's really left to argue about, except the fun things? I like automatics, but tend to shoot revolvers better. I'll follow this message with an essay I wrote some time ago. Take care, Neil ==================================================================== Author of the "single most repugnant ... piece of tripe ... ever seen ... in an American newspaper." -- a disgruntled reader ====================================================================