T
H
E
L
I
B
E
R
T
A
R
I
A
N
E
N
T
E
R
P
R
I
S
E
I
s
s
u
e
98
THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 98, November 13, 2000
The People Have Spoken!
Letters to the Editor
Send Letters to [email protected]
From: "Mark Wilson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: real libertarians
Date: Sunday, November 05, 2000 11:07 PM
Re: The 'libertarian' case for Nader
> Why I�m Voting for Nader: The real libertarian in the race.
> By Dave Kopel
>
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel110100.shtml
> ... Ralph Nader's Green party is on the cusp of getting 5 percent
> of the popular vote, and thus qualifying for federal campaign
> funds. (Which shouldn't even exist, but that's another story.) ...
> With federal funding, the Greens can become an important long-term
> influence in the political process.
The Green Party with megabucks of your money to spend advancing their progressive agenda? What a wonderful idea. Take a look: http://www.greenparty.org/Platform.html
A sample high point: "Maximum Income: Build into the progressive income tax a 100% tax on all income over ten times the minimum wage." Of course, this non-binding platform differs from the "Platform endorsed by the Nader/LaDuke campaign" - which likely won't matter in '02 or '04, considering that Nader already looks less well-preserved than Lenin.
> [Another excerpt, same article: "... [Harry] Browne has turned the
> national Libertarian party into a feeding trough for his
> consultants, and he has ripped off Libertarian party donors with
> direct-mail advertisements making patently absurd promises of
> imminent electoral success... " � ed.]
I leave judgment of relative absurdity as an exercise for the reader.
Who would have imagined that "the politics of personal destruction" would become an intramural sport among advocates of liberty? This self-destructive spitefulness reminds me of a duel fought in a closet. With hand grenades. I hope we'll be less stupid in '02 and '04.
� Mark B. Wilson, Killeen, TX
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TLE #97
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:15 AM
In a message dated 11/05/2000 10:11:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
<<
Have you seen the election season Snickers commercial on American
television? I don't exactly watch a lot of TV, but I made a point of
catching this one after hearing about it. As commercials go, it's
pretty darned funny. >>
It IS cute. Did you also see the Sprint ad? I mean the one with the executive or politician type admitting that "It was a very experimental time. ... But I did not talk, I only listened?" He has dedicated his life to warning young people against "even casual cellular use." Dare I to hope that things are really starting to turn around?
� Susan Wells
From: <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: TLE #97
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:21 AM
In a message dated 11/05/2000 10:11:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
<<
While the UFP mascots debate Oedipus complexes, and who invented the
Oedipus complex, a Libertarian Party figure would be sneaking cash
from the voter's wallet as a miniature Pat Buchanan demands to see
his identification papers. A little Communist ought to be insisting
on a fair redistribution of the LP's illicit gains. >>
Absolutely NOT! We do NOT need to air our dirty linen in public! Four years from now we simply need to nominate Don Gorman as our Presidential candidate.
� Susan Wells
From: Laissez Firearm
To: [email protected]
Subject: Giving Them the Rope
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 8:24 AM
>From George W. Bush's election site:
>Under the Clinton-Gore Administration, federal gun prosecutions
>have dropped 46%. Governor Bush will give prosecutors the
>resources they need to aggressively enforce our gun laws and
>will provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement
>programs . . .
Ever since the NRA started pushing this line of attack, I've become much more willing to accept TLE's description of the group as promoting the ultimate destruction of the RKBA.
Think about it. If every single one of the thousands and thousands of often contradictory and overlapping federal, state, and local gun laws and ordinances gets enforced to the hilt by agencies wallowing in cash and manpower, how many guns will be left in private hands?
�
Laissez Firearm
From: "Philip Prescott" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Nature of Rights
Date: Monday, November 06, 2000 10:59 PM
Sir,
Libertarians need to get their heads out of their asses about "rights". People get sick of hearing libertarians wail and moan about this right being infringed upon and that right being taken away; that is why most people do not take libertarians seriously. I want to be left alone, is that a right? Granted by whom? I can only be left alone if I have the power to make people leave me alone. I have no "right" to it, whatever that is exactly, only a passionate desire.
In short, a human being has only as much "right" as he has might. It is no mystery why being armed and able to defend yourself and your interests is so important. Force is the only thing which can save your ass when reason fails. Forget what rights you think you have and concentrate on what you want, in the end, it's the ony thing you really have. Freedom must be seized, and my property is only that which I can control.
Philip B Prescott
From: "Tom Wright" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Nader is the better Libertarian?
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 12:04 PM
I am listening to Nader make a speech right now, late in the morning of 8 November while we are all waiting for Florida to teach its' government-school-educated officials how to count.
He is speaking on issues we Libertarians have been speaking on for thirty years, and doing a better job of it than Browne has done for the past 8 years, even in his most fevered political wet dreams.
He is speaking of eliminating the drug war.
He is speaking of civil liberties.
He is speaking of foreign policies that avoid sticking our noses in other countries business, including a halt to our interference in Iraq.
He is speaking about opening up the political process to third parties and the end of the reptilocratic duoploly and introducing proportional representation.
He is speaking of protecting the environment and fighting the corporate system that perpetuates damaging policies.
He is speaking of ending the corporate welfare that is distorting our economy and polluting the political process.
The problem, of course, is that his arguments lead to the ancient, tired, antiquated socialist policies that he and others of like mind have taken to calling 'Progressive' lately, instead of towards true liberty.
We had a chance this election and we blew it by letting the Browne forces take over the Libertarian Party.
We need to turn to more aggressive, articulate, passionate candidates that know how to project a message.
Who that may be, I do not know.
I am so sad that Hornberger self-destructed this past year, to the point that many of us may never trust him to carry our banner in a national election.
I had hopes that Russell Means might be able to do this in 2002, but I have heard statements attributed to him of late that make me question those hopes. I do not know the accuracy of those attributions, so I still reserve judgement.
I had thought that Michael Cloud might do this, but he has alienated so many in our movement, could we ever gather around him?
Mary Ruart? She is smart, articulate and certainly dedicated, but does she have the charisma we need?
Do we need to find a celebrity like the Greens, the NRA and even the Reforms have done?
If we need a celebrity, can we find one willing to destroy his career for mere liberty?
Tom Wright
Your friendly local Libertarian Atheist
Deep in the Union of Soviet Socialst Counties of New Jersey
From: "JACK JEROME" <[email protected]>
To: "John Taylor" <[email protected]>
Subject: Tippicanoe and Al Gore too
Date: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 5:16 PM
Hi JC,
Hope that you had a chance to hear Mr. Gore's statement this afternoon (16:30 est) on the ballot recount. Here this guy had a chance to say something very presidential and failed miserably. Not only did he (predictably) go political in counting his "popular" vote as a referendum on the Democratic Party, but managed to give the impression that he wished to throw out the Electoral college vote as bogus. Yet in the next sentence, he assured the American people that the rule of law and Constitution of the country will be followed meticulously (metriculously?).
This is not what he stated in famous debate number 2, where he stated that the Constitution was a living document who's meanings can be re-interpreted by future generations. Obviously he smells a victory by following the rule of law, so he is content with the pending results at this time.
That may change, as the Dems seem bent upon a Constitutional Crisis which will allow a wedge to be driven into our freedoms. Should a Constitutional Congress be convened, ostensibly to modify the Electoral College Rules, all the Bill of Rights will be fair game.
Mr. Gore's statements sent a chill up my spine for another reason, that I have my doubts that he will actually comply with the final election results. The world is certainly watching on this one, and, as of this writing, we have no Presidential successor. I can only state for the record, whoever wins this one, I didn't vote for him.
Peace out,
Jack
From: "Eric Miller" <[email protected]>
Subject: election
Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 6:50 PM
This Nonsense Has To Stop
I just want to say there is occasionally good that can come from closed doors and handshakes. This is the time for Al Gore and George W. Bush to go behind closed doors and decide who is to be President.
The vote in Florida is just too close. Having new elections in Florida would just open the door to recounts and accusations of fraud in other places. Gore won by a few thousand votes in other states including Wisconsin and Iowa.
Bush getting the electoral nod by 400 votes in Florida is not a dramatically different percentage then Gore winning the popular vote by 200,000.
The country, faith in the system and the economy will suffer if this is not decided soon.
Perhaps Bush could finish his term as Governor and become president in two years, sharing the term with Gore. Or perhaps one could appoint the other Secretary of State. It appears now neither candidate will be big enough to step aside for the sake of the country and the people - which brings us to the real root of the problem. NEITHER WERE WORTH OUR TIME OR VOTE.
Eric Miller
From: "bretta35" <[email protected]>
To: "John Taylor" <[email protected]>
Subject: Government By Decree
Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 7:34 PM
Dear John:
Anyone who is concerned about Presidents ruling by Executive Order should read Government By Decree by James L. Hirsen, PH.D.
It's available from amazon.com for $4 plus shipping. [$4.49 currently]
This is a much neglected subject in American civics and all Americans should become informed as it EO's have led to so much abuse.
Take care,
James J. Odle
From: "Jim Davidson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Rejoice!
Date: Thursday, November 09, 2000 11:43 PM
Dear John,
I bring you glad tidings of great joy! Nobody won!
"A day of mourning following the election on November 7th is the least we can do since one of these two empty suits is going to get elected!" quoth Minority Mike (TLE 97).
Perhaps, but we may never know which one! The most intelligent thing said on election night, bar none, was by Susie Commentator in Houston, a large city in the Republic of Texas. She said, "The only thing we know for sure is the next president's last name will be a four-letter word."
You can be sure that among the four-letter words that came instantly to mind, "work" and "free" were not among them.
Best regards to Capt. Duncil.
Free yourself,
P.S. Congrats to Vin & Neil for their 5,000 plus votes in AZ.
Next
to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 98, November 13, 2000.