Letters to the Editor and Feedback

Speed Traps Feedback

Rating = Bad
General Comments = We should not be recommending damage to property (i.e., shooting cameras) or unneccessary discharge of firearms in public places no matter how upsetting we find governmental policy. Intelligent people should be able to express freedom without being destructive.

I am not advocating damaging private property, which is the only true sort of property. I'm talking about tools used by thugs to steal from private individuals.

And I don't think defense of freedom and defense against theft are 'unnecessary'. And I don't understand why you think that 'public' discharge of a firearm is automatically bad. It might not be 'necessary' for a hunter, with a good job allowing him to buy his food, to shoot at a deer on BLM-controlled land. But it isn't inherently dangerous. Deer or camera; just follow the basic rules of firearms safety, which include knowing your target and what's beyond it.

Yes, we should be able to 'express freedom' without having to resort to destruction. But when the cops can shoot you for refusing to be robbed, when they don't have the integrity to pretend that their speed trap is for safety (unmanned radar cameras), why [...] should I cooperate and allow them to continue to operate?

Sam Jensen

Eloquently spoken. But to make the matter simpler: If you object to speed traps, but don't want to destroy anything (whether on moral or practical grounds), then simply post signs. If you feel that unmanned traps are thoroughly objectionable, as Sam clearly does, act as your conscience dictates. If you don't mind speed traps and fines, then pay your money and move on; but I wonder why you'd be a Doing Freedom! reader. - Editor

Blow Guns Feedback

Rating = Excellent
General Comments = does hairspray work as a poison?

One more time: I don't do poisons. None of our writers have stepped forward with an article on dart poisons. Unless that happens, I can't help you.

That said, I'd think it rather unlikely that substances routinely sprayed onto living people - day in and day out, with no concern for, nor evidence of, notable toxicity - are especially poisonous.

Since blow guns, darts, and hairspray are readily available, you could try bagging some squirrels and let DF! know what happens.

Making It in Mexico Feedback

Rating = Excellent
general comments = I enjoyed the specifics like rent prices. also another way down might be to hop a ride on commercial or private boats. thanx 4 the info

Thanks, and a good point about the boats.

What's in a (Domain) Name Feedback

Rating = Good
General Comments = Please note that your link for Domain Buyers Guide is now a web site for Cheap Domain Names. It is an ironic twist: you are sending people to find objective reviews on domain names, and we find only a seedy looking site which may be the very kind of name dealers your article warns against. We have to wonder if domainbuyersguide.com had their own domain stolen.

Peace . . .

The irony loses its temper somewhat when you consider that this is an archived article from a year and a half ago. In that amount of time, during a period when dot-coms were going bust left and right, the company might simply have gone out of business, no piracy required.

External links in archived articles can expire.

The Service of Government Feedback

Rating = Excellent
General Comments = That was great!!! I've never read anything like that before (2nd Revolution War Stories). Is ther other stuff like this by this author or anyone else?

DF! serialized Mr. Barton's novella, "Homecoming", in the July, August and September issues this year. You should also look under "Fiction" in our Subject Index for stories from other writers.

Self-serving hint: Look at the banner ad at the top of the page. <g> And inspired by this question, I decided to run my short story Call to Arms in this issue.

And I highly recommend Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

You might also want to check the Web and libraries for the works of Robert Service.

Rating = Average
General Comments = I read "The Service of Government." I suppose, if and when things ever get as bad as described in the story, it will be good for children like Peter to have notions of right and wrong so deeply ingrained that they could resist tyranny so decisively as Peter did. But as much as I can admire Peter's courage with a gun literally pointed at his head in the hypothetical future, I must despise the stupidity and cowardice shown over an over by voters in our present-day elections. The proper use of ballots now can avert the need for bullets later. The thoughtless casting of votes today will make the use of bullets inevitable. Can not bloody stories such as this one inspire people to support freedom in the voting booth? That is my hope, even more than wanting future children like Peter to have the vision and guts to resist a tyranny that some feel we cannot avoid.

Since Mr. Barton just ran as the Libertarian candidate for governor of South Dakota, I'm fairly sure he hasn't given up on the ballot box yet. But being an anarchist, I don't place much faith in it anymore. Too many states have placed restrictions on ballot access by anyone but the approved Republicrat candidate, making it nearly impossible for anyone representing my views to get elected. And judging by the way the entrenched powers have gutted the US constitution, and are interfering with the people's choice on things like medical marijuana, they aren't going to respect the voters' voice on anything unless it meets with their approval.

What Women Don't Want Feedback

Rating = Excellent
General Comments = Any organization has members that possibly would have failed a screening process. What perversion would a libertarian outfit be if it did not permit its members certain behaviours?

Ms. James was commenting on behavior that a woman might find unacceptable in a potential partner, not on what an organization should allow its members to do.

That said, why shouldn't any voluntary association be allowed to set rules for its members? Certainly most libertarian groups seem to insist upon the Zero Aggression Principle (El Neil decided mere Nonaggression sounded too wimpy).

More Feedback
on "What Women Don't Want".

Marriage Alternatives Feedback

Rating = Poor
General Comments = The authors define group marriage as "multiple females and multiple males (nM-nF)", implying n > 0 for both M and F. However, a group marriage could involve only men or only women. A group marriage involves at least three persons total, and at least two persons of each sex involved. Three persons would comprise the smallest possible single sex group marraige, two males and two females the smallest possible male/female group marraige.

Bisexuals, transexuals and hermaphrodites (completely ignored by the authors) further complicate matters.

These are minor flaws. The article's real problem is that it doesn't address freedom. A superficial comparison of various marriage configurations doesn't help an individual freedom seeker. A homosexual won't consider and heterosexual marriage and vice versa, and many people won't be intestested in polyamory if they prefer monogamy, or vice versa.

Most people probably know approximately what sort of configuration they prefer. The question is not choosing another configuration, but how to fulfill one's preferences with minimal interference and maximal benefit.

Given that one wants, e.g., a monogamous heterosexual relationship, how can the freedom seeker structure that relationship configuration optimally? This is the question I expected the article to address.

At the most basic level, what rules shall govern the relationship? We can choose, to an extent, among private contracts and government contracts.


  • no private / no government ("girl/boyfriend")
  • private / no government (relationship contract unsanctioned by the state as marriage)
  • no private / government marriage (default marriage)
  • private / government marraige (government sanctioned marriage with private prenuptual agreement)

Only monogamous heterosexuals have access to all of the above options, though domestic partnership status provides a government option in some states.

For each relationship configuration, what contract options might the freedom seeker find agreeable?

Another important parameter not considered in the article is that of duration. Serial monogamy gets a fair amount of press, though any configuration could be serial rather than ostensibly "until death do us part."

Mike Linksvayer

Umm, I think you missed the parts where the authors stated:

    "The various marriage configurations vary along two dimensions: the number of males (zero, one, or many) and the number of females (zero, one, or many)." (emphasis mine)
That is hardly "implying n > 0". They specifically included 0 as a variable.

The title of the article IS "Marriage Alternatives in a Free Society" (ie- the assumption is already made that government has no role in these relationships). It is NOT billed as a marriage self-help guide. I don't think it's reasonable to complain that an article didn't address a topic it wasn't written about. You might as well complain that it didn't cover small engine repair.

MAiaFS was written and presented as a basic comparison of options. Options which include some not generally available in the authors' locations because they are banned by law. This is how the piece relates to freedom: Options forbidden may have never been considered by some people. Once free, the options become available and someone may then wish to consider whether his, her, their, its, et cetera happiness and well-being could be enhanced by exercising an option.
- Carl Bussjaeger

I suppose I could argue that "M" and "F" would refer to anyone who considers themselves "male" or "female" regardless of biology (so a man transgendered into a woman would be designated in the "nF" category). In retrospect, though, I wish we had mentioned the transgendered/hermaphrodite segment specifically.
- Debra Ricketts

In summary, the article quite obviously did not mean to exclude anything by omission, but had to be cut off at some point. As Debra and I discussed it, we agreed that it should be the first of at least three articles, with the next two exploring the realities (as opposed to barstool theory) of the two primary alternatives: homosexual and polygynous (it turned out that we missed an important group that seems to be underground). I would love to see some followup articles in the same vein, but I don't have the necessary experience, at least until the right people pick up as I sit on my barstool.

The one novel concept in the article, which is what drove me to write, was that there is no easy prescriptive definition of marriage--all we can do is describe it, and none of the common features is necessary or sufficient, or necessarily dependent on the sex or number of partners. I myself was greatly surprised.
- Steve Cobb

Editor's Corner Feedback

rating = good
general comments = I agree with you regarding FSP. While it sounds like a good idea (I lean to Montana myself), I don't trust it over the long haul. It expects too much cooperation from its subscribers, but what happens when an individual doesn't believe or like something FSP wants to transpire? Is he/she supposed to contribute just the same? Besides I'm a non-voter and that automatically lets me out of the whole process!
Pat Taylor

I can live with Montana. I just have pleasant emotional associations with Wyoming. <grin>

Yurts Feedback

Hi there,
I love the yurt article at http://www.doingfreedom.com/gen/0600/nca.yurt.html !
I live in a yurt and I'm trying to find anyone who knows of an insurance company that provides homeowners insurance for yurts...do you have any idea or know where I might be able to contact someone who does? I've already tried all the yurt companies. Any info will be appreciated!

No, I don't know of any company that provides insurance to yurts. I suggest coming at the question from the opposite direction -- asking insurance companies in the area where you live, as well as national ones, if they'll cover you.
- Sunni

I'll be surprised if any insurance company offers homeowner's insurance for non-permanent structures. But maybe you can find a general property damage policy that isn't specifically for a home. Hopefully, someone out there can prove me wrong though.
- Carl

Flour-free... and Delicious Feedback

Rating = Excellent
General Comments = Thanks. I can be Libertarian and a Celiac at the same time. Great site. I came across it reading about the Jackboot Award for November.
Your site will be bookmarked and frequented often. Keep it up.
Joe Haynes
Seminole, FL

Thanks for writing. I'm glad you find the site doubly useful. If you would like to share specific recipes or have questions, email me at advisor@linuxmail.org, and I'll see what I can dig up or create.
- Sunni

Rating = Excellent
General Comments = You didn't mention pies. Am sending you a Nut Crust recipe for pies or cheesecake:

Nut Pastry for Pie Crust [for two crusts, or for cheesecake]
2/3 [3/4] cup walnuts or pecans
1/3 [1/2] cup brown sugar
2 [3] tb butter,softened
Preheat oven to 350; spread nuts in a pie pan and bake for 5-7 min, or till fragrant. Let cool. Process or chop fine. Add brown sugar and butter and blend well; press into bottom of pie pan to form a crust. For cheesecake crust, make double amount and bring it up the sides of the pan. Particularly good for pumpkin/sweet potato, lemon meringue, or even a light modified crumb topping.
Pat Taylor

Actually, I did mention pies, but only briefly, and failed to include the recipes I'd intended for wheatfree pie crusts. I'm still doing some experimenting on this one. I'll include your recipe on the page with the others. Thanks for sharing it with us!
- Sunni

Please rate this article!
Knowing what you like will help us provide the content you want.

Bad Poor Average Good Excellent

If there's anything specific you'd like to say about this article, please do so here.
Comments may be used in an upcoming Letters to the Editor.

Copyright © 2002 by Doing Freedom! magazine. All rights reserved.