15 DEC 96

Dear Robert:

I think we arrived at a good definition of prostitution and promiscuity: the prostitute does something he or she would not wish to do, but will do it for money. The promiscuous person does it because he or she likes to do it and will perform willingly, for nothing.

I am struck by the televised ad for a diamond ring which shows a partially-clad couple who are obviously going to "do it", but when the diamond ring is proffered to the female, she really gets 'hot' and appears ready to rape her male companion, just as that commercial cuts to a dog food ad. Now, that's pretty direct advertising, which puts a real price tag on 'love'.

In regard to the often compulsory nature of things. Let's start with the first: birth. No one I have ever met has told me that they wanted to be conceived and born, but, confronted with that fact, they proposed to make the best of things. At least sometimes. You mentioned your experience with one garbage-producer and how you communicated with him so that he would cease and desist. Anarchy (the total absence of government) has never existed in human society, at least as far as we know, and it is never likely to exist when human diversity is present.

Writers refer to a 'social contract', meaning a set of rules we MUST follow if we are to coexist in the same living space with others. We see the necessary infringement of property rights on behalf of community interests. Zoning laws protect us to some extent from finding our bedrooms next to the proverbial boiler factory or the raucous nigger nightclub and its blaring rap-crap. In Bakersfield, CA, where I was born, there was indeed a boiler factory, and was it ever a noisy place! I associate it with a constant clanging and hammering and I am sure the workers there all went deaf, like the contemporary 'heavy metal' rock concert-goers.

When people live together, community rights must take precedence over individual rights. I knew self-styled libertarians (anarchists) in CA who exercised their 'freedom' by crossing the street on red lights. I said that is a foolish way to show one's disdain for law and order, for it may get one killed. At least bank robbery can get you some quick cash and is not so dangerous! Sure, government must be compulsory. There is no escape from it, unless one can live as a hermit. Most people prefer NOT to live all by themselves, and that is obvious, so they must subordinate their immediate desires so as to get along with their neighbors and family members. That is compulsory, if one wants to associate with others and derive the major advantages from a community. As we would probably both agree, my right to step ends where your toes begin. Certainly, community life is not perfect, but it is apparently more desirable and much more practical than any form of anarchy or libertarianism.

I had an argument with the selfish libertarian, Bradley Smith, who claimed that private ownership was our salvation, rather than government ownership. I asked him, "who do you think owns the government?" It is an open secret that all governments serve private interests, so where is the solution? Who is to tell John D. Wreckafeller what is "enough"? Only someone bigger than he can do so, and government, as it is presently constituted, cannot tell him! Bob LeFevre and Bradley Smith have always lived OFF this society, its government, just as I have. None of us have really lived DESPITE our society and its government. I pay my compulsory taxes because I prefer to live with more control over my life than I would have in a prison. Life is a trade-off, as mature people realize. A price must be paid for everything, especially for 'freedom'. I save my earnings, such as they are, on behalf of my freedom to move to a better job and a better place, when or if such an opportunity arises. If I earned lots of zog-bucks, I would be able to purchase my freedom to do what I wanted to do, rather than what my employer and paymaster wants me to do. If I want to live in the Jew-Ess-Eh, I must put up with compulsory policies of the entity known as FEDZOGUSA. If I really do not want to be drafted into USZOG's forces, then I need to pull a Bill Clinton and make myself scarce. It is similar to the perfect 'freedom' of the Soviet Jewnion: "You are free to express exactly what you think, and I am free to kill or imprison you for expressing it." Now, that's a "win-win" situation, similar to the 'perfect' resolution of the bear's need for a meal and the hunter's need for a fur-coat. As Nietzsche noted: "Man has his stomach to remind him that he is not a god."

I do not think any system of anarchy can eliminate the compulsory aspects of life. I may be subversive for my lack of concern about censorship on the Internet, but I note, as you have, that truth cannot make anyone free if they do not act upon it. As you said so well, no amount of chatter gets a problem solved. For that, action is required. The Internet is a covey of consumers, not activist-idealists, as we know. Most of the boobs think they are 'free' when they have nothing to say. As one caller told me at Samisdat: "Canada is a free country, so keep your mouth shut!"

One thing which we note is that an increase of human diversity within a decreasing space results in lots of violence and an eventual sorting out of like with like, no matter how much the ZOG wants us to mix. Freedom of association, as you say, is really THE basic and relevant freedom for everyone, and that can be achieved within the realm of the possible, unlike libertarianism/anarchy.