Both envision overlapping moral and criminal codes, but in different ways. The Christian enlarges the criminal code to the full area of the moral code, whereas the libertarian shrinks the moral code to the area of the criminal code. Both views are fundamentally flawed and eventually unworkable.
Carried to their respective extremes, the first would eventually outlaw premarital handshaking, while the second would eventually allow copulation in the streets. There can and must be some middle case which is at least tolerable — if not comfortable —to both Christians and libertarians. And we need to forge that synthesis very soon, else we'll both be swept off the cultural map.
But you are still morally opposed to victimless crimes, aren't you?
Of course! That term "victimless crimes" is only half true. The so-called victimless crimes have no direct criminal victim, but it is silly to imagine that they have no harmful effect at all. The indirect victim has been decent society — all in the name of "tolerance." G.K. Chesterton wrote, "Tolerance is the virtue of those who don't believe in anything." Florence King said it best: "'Sensitivity' makes cowards of us all."
But decency can not be legislated.
Right, and that's the paradox: Laws cannot force people to be kind and decent. Decency must be taught by parents, and rewarded by society. But today society instead scoffs at decency. Turn in somebody's wallet full of cash and you're an idiot.
I once found a used video called Federal Follies which had three US Government training films from the 1960s. This video was sold to mock the utter seriousness of these films. Granted, the films are incomparably corny today, but that's because manners and chaste behavior have become corny.
One 1966 Navy film titled "Blondes Prefer Gentlemen" showed two guys at a dinner party, a slob and a gentleman. The gentleman knew to R.S.V.P., to be courteous, to help a lady with her chair, how to use the butter knife, etc. He got the girl, whereas the slob did not. One thing that surprised me was that the slob of 1966—portrayed in the most boorish light then possible — is not, by today's standards, all that remarkable. The slob of 1966 is a fairly normal guy 50 years later. That alarms me.
And another thing, what is unhealthy or abnormal about a man and woman both losing their virginity to each other on their wedding night, and simultaneously co-discovering something rapturous and sacred for themselves? I mean, imagine the benefits: no sexual jealousy over past lovers, no chlamydia, no syphilis, no gonorrhea, no herpes, no genital warts, no AIDS, no past abortions, no guilt, no psychic damage. Just pure and innocent love-making. What could be wrong with that? But the world, including PLAYBOY magazine, sneers at such a notion and pulls it down into the mud.
We are sawing off the limb upon which we sit, just because we like the sound. It is truly madness. And, we're about out of limbs.
But these aren't the 1950s.
True, but have we really progressed and advanced as a society? Are people truly more contented? More joyful? More moral? Less criminal? Where have 60 years of rampant extramarital sex gotten us? Are women happier today than they were in the '50s? I wouldn't bet on it.
You're a fascinating paradox of a man, Governor. A Christian who would decriminalize drugs, but a libertarian morally opposed to abortion. It seems both camps would be displeased with you.
(laughs) Actually, neither camp is all that displeased. Although I didn't consciously try to design a workable synthesis of Christian and libertarian beliefs, my views have apparently helped to form a coalition.
How do you propose to solve the dilemma of a necessary public morality without such being enforced by laws?
The best idea I've heard is through the proliferation of voluntary communities owning private property, each with their own type of covenant restricting or prohibiting what they see as harmful behaviors. Such is libertarian in notion and in practice. If a particular covenant is disagreeable to you, then you don't have to live there or visit. In time, we would see drug-free communities —religious and secular — bisexual potsmoker communities, etc. Every individual would have a choice of many different communities which reflect one's personal morals. Each lifestyle community would compete for members. Folks would judge the tree by the fruit, and I suspect that communities embracing harmful behaviors will putrefy and fizzle out. Even if they didn't, their pathology would remain contained, which is the next best thing.
But that's discrimination.
Yes, it certainly is. That's the whole point. People have the right to be biased — or even prejudiced. It's called the free market. Only government does not have the right to discriminate. Can a woman turn down a marriage proposal? Of course. Is that bias? Sure. What's wrong with it? Nothing. Bias and discrimination are a part of human life. However, if left alone, things sort themselves out.
Sheer bigotry for the sake of bigotry would quickly become economically costly, if not socially costly. For example, a black family has an honest, successful hardware store but Buford Bigot won't buy from "niggers." Not only does he lose out by being forced to drive 30 miles to the next town for his supplies — folks in town begin to shun Buford Bigot. If, however, the whole town are bigots, then other towns will shun that town. In a truly free market, people will pay full fare for their prejudice and bigotry. Those who don't wake up and grow up will stay poor, alone, and bitter.
Both Democrats and Republicans are concerned that the Laissez-Faire Party will alter national elections. Is that likely?
(laughing) I really don't see what they have to worry about. Most Americans are satisfied with their gilded bondage and will continue to elect new jailers every four years. That is precisely why we had to concentrate on a particular state. Wyoming happened to be almost reserved for us, it seems.
We made room for government supremacists — they have the rest of the country. Why can't they make room for us in Wyoming? Their hysteria about the Laissez-Faire Party victory in 2014 speaks volumes. They will not rest until everybody is under bureaucratic decree.
Hey, Tom, do you know what is the biggest fear of liberals? That somewhere, somehow, somebody... is...happy. (laughing)
Can Wyoming retain such a provincial Gemeinschaft?
Yes. Several hundred thousand Wyomingites earnestly desire it. To understand us one must understand how 6th century Irish monasteries on the fringe of civilization kept alive Christianity and classical learning during Europe's Dark Ages. The seeds of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance were protected until the European soil was once again ready 500 years later.
America is quickly embracing a subpagan culture and is sliding into her own Dark Ages, and Wyoming will be someday likened to that tiny monastery of Skellig Michael. Precursors were gated communities and the home-schooling movement of the late 20th century. Wyoming was the logical extension of splintered attempts to create small islands of decency, civility, and common sense amidst a raging sea of depravity, larceny, and lunacy. We are endeavoring to form a center which will hold.
Will that center hold?
I believe so, yes. We fully understand what we are about, we have all the natural resources required, we are well armed, and we are training to defend ourselves. The nation wants to go to hell in a handbasket? Fine. Just don't expect us to join the journey, willingly or by force.
Governor, we at PLAYBOY appreciate the interview.
It was my pleasure, Tom, thank you. Come out to visit Wyoming sometime and see what all the fuss is about!
I just might do that Governor, thanks.
__________
1 www.nationofcowards.net/writings/RightRightforOurTime.html
2016
Cheyenne, Wyoming
Budget Session
January 2016
The Laissez-Faire Party and libertarian Republicans now have 19 of 30 Senators, and 40 of 60 Congressmen. The remaining minority of old-guard Republicans and Democrats is reduced to titular legislators, as they haven't introduced and passed any bills of their own in two years. They now watch in a mixture of awe, sanguinity, grudging ap
proval, and bitterness at the "Preston Revolution" taking place. Barring some unforeseen political disaster, the Democrats have been locked out of Wyoming state politics for the next several election cycles. The people had finally tasted some real freedom (and its subsequent economic boom). What could the old mainline parties offer in response? Less freedom and more taxes?
The business of the legislature included three proposed constitutional amendments. They read as follows:
"Proposed Constitutional Amendment A: To replace Article 1, Section 17 of the Wyoming Constitution with:
The right of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless, when in case of invasion, the public safety may require it.
"Proposed Constitutional Amendment B: To eliminate the state power of 'eminent domain' by replacing Article 1, Sections 32 and 33 with:
Private property shall not be taken, damaged, reduced in value or enjoyment for private or public use unless by voluntary and informed consent of the owner in a fair and free market transaction.
"Proposed Constitutional Amendment C: To eliminate the government requirement for professional licenses:
The government shall not require from any individual, as a prerequisite for, or condition of, private employment or commercial enterprise, any license or permit.
As was his wont, Governor Preston explained the proposed amendments in a televised speech.
"The writ of habeas corpus is your natural right, not a mere privilege which is constitutionally revokable during insurrections. Habeas corpus is Latin for "you have the body," meaning a judge who compels the court appearance of a prisoner claiming unlawful imprisonment due to restraint of liberty and due process. The English jurist Blackstone wrote that the writ of habeas corpus was a 'cornerstone' right. Thomas Jefferson was particularly upset when the framers of the US Constitution referred to this right as a mere privilege in Article I, Section 9 — language which our own constitution unfortunately copied. Our proposed amendment will correct that error.
"Amendment B. If your government desires a privately owned property, then it can bid for it like any potential buyer. Some have criticized this proposed amendment for not including a war or insurrection exception. Any property so necessary to Wyoming would likely be recognized as such by its owner and willingly sold at a fair price. If not, then he has to live with his irate community thereafter. If the owner's intransigence to sell comes during war or insurrection, then his community will undoubtedly bring great pressure upon him to act sensibly. Such pressure, if warranted, should come from a local community rather than from distant government officials exercising force majeure through power of eminent domain.
"Amendment C. It is this administration's goal to eliminate the requirement for professional licenses, and your legislature has passed a bill and proposed a constitutional amendment to do just that. We believe that it is the proper place of the private sector to accredit the professions, and the responsibility of the buyer to ascertain the expected quality of services to be rendered. Guilds and consumer organizations will be of great help there. Several tiers of quality within each profession will emerge, each stratum receiving the level of income it deserves. The shoddy practitioners will become infamous soon enough. If you want a house built cheaply, then hire an unaccredited company. Or, if you take no chances, then hire the expensive services of a bonded contracting firm. Either way, it's going to be your choice. Caveat emptor. Choose wisely and contract thoroughly. We're all adults here, and it's time we started acting like it."
Amendment A was fairly uncontroversial. Amendment B had most government extremacists howling, naturally. Amendment C awoke those in bed with the government/corporate complex. The corporate capitalists had long used licensing requirements to restrict, if not prevent, nascent competition from developing. For the first time in the Preston administration, Big Money was threatened. Most unions, leagues, associations, brotherhoods, orders, guilds, lodges, and fraternities vowed to fight C.
Big Horn County, Wyoming
February 2016
The county seat of Greybull is home to the Aerial Firefighting Museum, which has five of the six WW2 PB4Y-2 Catalinas still flying. One relocator, a retired USAF colonel toured the museum back in 2009 when he was checking out the county. The people were pleasant and the flying conditions were very good, so he returned the next year and built north of town an airpark country club, complete with taxiways to each property's own hangar.
The thirty lots sold out in four months. Locals called the subdivision the "Big Horn County Air Force."
We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific, difficult, manual tasks.
—Woodrow Wilson, to a group of businessmen just prior to World War I
After 30-odd years of "progressive" government schooling, America has raised two whole generations of emotionally hollow automatons whose "political opinions" are based on what teacher said and which opinions get applauded or booed on Oprah Winfrey and Jerry Springer and Dan Rather's CBS Liberal News.
How did the pod people take over while you weren't looking?
It's the government schools, stupid.
—Vin Suprynowicz, The Ballad of Carl Drega (2002), p. 532
Cheyenne, Wyoming
March 2016
Tom Parks briefs Governor Preston on the success of the Ten Points.
"Violent crime, which was already low in 2014, is down by 82%. Property crime, including cold burglaries, are down 56%. Wyoming now enjoys the lowest crime rate in the nation."
The Governor laughs. "Then maybe they'll stop calling it the 'Preston Experiment.' If our Ten Points were ever an 'experiment' the results are conclusive by now. What else?"
"After the removal of daytime highway speed limits, fatalities increased slightly for several months and then dropped down to 2014 levels."
Preston nods grimly. "Sounds like a few irresponsible drivers weeded themselves out. Well, we expected that, though I'm sorry that they sometimes hurt or killed innocent people. Go on."
"Finally, there is extremely widespread approval of the amendments regarding jury trials, parental rights, and taxation. We knocked it out of the park with those, Governor."
Preston smiles. "I hear that people in other states are getting jealous. All this country needed was one bold example to remind them of the freedom they started out with in the early 18th century. Wyomingites will never go back to the way it was. The liberty genie is out of the bottle."
"Yes, sir. It's very exciting."
"OK, we've gotten past the base of our mountain. Now for the first real ascent. Abolishing public education." Turning to his Attorney General, Preston asks, "So, what have you got?"
"Governor, we've researched the legal history of public education in America all the way back to mid 19th century Massachusetts. We specifically scrutinized the redistributive court orders of the 1980s, particularly in Texas which mandated bilingual education. We have arrived at the proverbial good news and bad news. It makes sense to outline the bad news first."
Preston is listening intently, ready to make notes. "OK then. Let's hear the bad news."
"Yes, sir. First, your administration's goal is to, by some point and through some means, transform all Wyoming public education into privately-funded schools supported by free-market forces, isn't that correct."
"Perfectly correct. Free-market forces meaning the parents." "Understood, Governor. The parents, yes."
Preston smiles at his formality. The terminologies of attorneys and economists are necessarily rigid and precise, but they often obscure the fact that law and money are human institutions, affecting real people.
The AG continues. "Furthermore, to achieve privatization would seem to first require a parental discretionary funding of private schools, such as a voucher system, would it not?"
"It would seem so, yes."
"And once mar —, uh, paren
ts begin to send their children to private schools without the previous double burden of supporting the public schools, an increasing emigration from the public schools would ensue. In effect, you propose that the free-market effectively close down government education in Wyoming."
"That was the idea, yes." Preston frowns, not seeing where this is going. "So what's the bad news?"
"The bad news is that, in our opinion, we cannot legally accomplish this. Not under current case law. The courts would almost certainly rule it unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds, as well as others."
Preston is quiet for several moments. Then, with great deliberation he asks, "How can this be? Didn't that 2002 Supreme Court case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris uphold voucher programs?"
The AG replies, "Only partially, and that was largely due to the financial disincentives created by the Ohio Pilot Project Scholarship Program. Private schools received only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third given to the so-called 'magnet' schools. Families still had to copay a portion of private school tuition. In the name of 'neutrality to religion,' the Ohio program went out of its way to favor government schools, which is why the Court did not strike it down. Even still, it was only a 5-4 decision, with Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter dissenting. Breyer dissented on the dubious, if not ridiculous, grounds that the program would foment 'divisiveness' and 'religious strife.'"
"That's pretty overblown," Preston says.
"Yes, sir. The majority of the Court thought so, too."
"Sorry, go on, " Preston urges.
"What we have in mind for Wyoming goes far beyond a mere supplementation of public education. We propose to supplant public education when such will not have been seen by the Court as a failure in the first place. Because we propose to return 100% of school tax funds to parents in voucher form to be spent at their sole discretion, there are no financial disincentives to private schools. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Even though the Mueller line of cases requires true private choice amongst a broad class of citizens, and even though religious schools directly benefit by their choice, the post-Rehnquist Court would bend over backwards to declare that our scheme is not neutral to religion."
Molon Labe! Page 43
