Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 01:01:51 -0700
From: "L. Neil Smith" <[l--e--l] at [ez0.ezlink.com]>
To: [n--b--n] at [mainstream.net]
Cc: [l--c] at [ez0.ezlink.com]
Subject: LNS BOOK ESSAY
Message-ID: <[199603120801 AA 21941] at [ez0.ezlink.com]>

                 SUPPOSE YOU WERE FOND OF BOOKS

                        by L. Neil Smith

     Suppose you were fond of books ...

     You liked their leather bindings, their fancy endpapers, the
way they speak to you of other times and places, the way they
feel in your hand. 

     You even liked the way they smell. 

     Naturally you were aware that books are dangerous. They give
people ideas. Over the long, sad course of history, they've
resulted in the slaughter of millions -- books like _Uncle Tom's
Cabin_, _Das Kapital_, _Mein Kampf_, even the Bible -- but you
had too much intelligence, too much regard for the right of other
people to read, write, _think_ whatever they please, to blame the
books themselves. 

     Now suppose somebody came along who agreed with you: books
are dangerous -- and something oughta be done about it! Nothing
you couldn't live with: numbers could be stamped inside them, a
different number, not just in each kind of book, each title or
edition -- but in each and every individual book. 

     "We can keep track of 'em better that way -- it'll help get
'em back if they're stolen."  

     But wait .... Isn't the right to freedom of expression, the
right to create, exchange, and collect books -- without a trace
of government harassment -- to read, write, and think whatever
you please, supposed to be guaranteed by the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution? No matter who thinks it's wrong? No matter
how "sensible" their arguments may sound for taking that right
away?

     You tried to defend your rights, but nobody listened. You
appealed to the media; they were even more dependent on the Bill
of Rights than you were, and American journalism always gloried
in its self-appointed role as watchdog over the rights of the
individual. But the sad truth was, that during its long, self-
congratulatory history, it was more like a cur caught bloody-
muzzled time after time, savaging the flocks it had been trusted
to protect. 

     You were alone. You insisted that books don't kill people,
people kill people. They laughed and told you that people who
read books kill people. 

     Time passed .... Still they weren't satisfied. They wanted
the serial numbers written down in record books. Then they wanted
your name written down beside the numbers, along with your
address, your driver's license number, your age, your race, your
sex: "'Cause we gotta right to know who's _reading_ all these
books!"  

     Soon they were demanding that bookstores be licensed. They
forbade you to buy books by mail or in another state and required
that your dealer report you if you bought more than one book in a
five day period. They forbade you to buy more than one book a
month. They demanded that you wait five days, a week, three weeks
before you could pick up a book you'd already paid for -- at a
store subject to unannounced warrantless inspections and punitive
closure by heavily-armed government agents. In Massachussetts and
New Jersey, the mere possession of a book meant an automatic year
in jail. At one point they offered to spend tax money to buy your
books: "You've got too many.  This is a purely voluntary measure
-- for the time being."  

     Now they want to confiscate any of your books they think are
_too long_: "No honest citizen needs a book with _that_ many
pages!"

     Your taxes will be spent to burn them, and somehow you have
a feeling that it's just the beginning, that some dark midnight,
no matter how peaceable or agreeable or law-abiding you are,
you're going to hear that knock on your door ... 

     Yes, books are dangerous. They start holy wars, revolutions,
and make people dissatisfied with their lives. 

     But this is ridiculous!  

     Is it a nightmare? Another Gulag horror story? A bloodsoaked
page from the history of fascism? No, it's just the commonplace
oppression people suffer every day when they feel about _guns_
the way you feel about _books_. 

     Okay, maybe that feeling's hard to understand. But just try
justifying your own love of books to a Reverand Donald Wildmon or
an Ayatollah Khomeini. The very requirement that you must, in
violation of your basic human rights, will make you inarticulate
with rage. 

     Gun owners laugh at the notion of human rights, because they
have none. 

     Guns _are_ dangerous. Like books. Like books, the right to
create, exchange, and collect them without a trace of government
harassment, is supposed to be guaranteed. No matter who thinks
it's wrong. No matter how "sensible" their arguments may sound
for taking your rights away. 

     So what makes you think your books are any safer than your
neighbor's guns? Whether you like books or guns, the issue's the
same: WHEN ANYBODY'S RIGHTS ARE THREATENED, EVERYBODY'S RIGHTS
ARE THREATENED. 

===================================

L. Neil Smith 
Author:   THE PROBABILITY BROACH, THE CRYSTAL EMPIRE,
THE LANDO CALRISSIAN ADVENTURES, HENRY MARTYN, and PALLAS
National Coordinator:  Libertarian Second Amendment Caucus
Legislative Director:  Weld County Fish & Wildlife Association
Chairman:  Rick Tompkins Libertarian for President
Publisher:  _The Libertarian Enterprise_
NRA Life Member (1973)

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the 
author, provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, 
and appropriate credit given.