IN THIS ISSUE: Your (to whatever degree) esteemed Editor has reached a
decision point, and needs your help. In recent issues, I have
(deliberately, and without explicit permission from Our Founder) moved
away from one of the basic tenets of The Libertarian Enterprise. To
wit, I have -- consciously, and with malice aforethought -- published
articles that are demonstrably not, in the words of Himself, "genuine
and unabashed libertarian opinions" (http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe9510.html).
Unofficial feedback -- here and elsewhere -- has been (to be
charitable) "mixed". So, a question, put forth for your consideration:
is this a useful exercise, or does it just infuriate you? Should we
stick to only those articles that 'deserve' publishing and let others
seek another venue? Or should we engage such views and use TLE as a
place to debate them on their own merits (or lack thereof)?
Secondarily, if we should restrict ourselves thusly, would you, as
readers, prefer to continue with weekly (presumably noticeably
smaller) issues, or fall back to biweekly (or even monthly)
publication and sacrifice whatever timeliness we have gained by more
frequent publication?
Please let me know your viewpoint; anticipating a "flood" of letters,
please keep your responses short, without denying us the benefit of
your "genuine and unabashed libertarian opinions". But do
write us. Inquiring minds ("Whose? Mine!") want to know!
The Editor
Letters To The Editor
from Carl Bussjaeger, Mark Etanerkist, Joshua Holmes,
Steve, Julian Morrison, Carl E. Mullin, Bill Bunn, Curt Howland, Karl G. Long,
Curt Howland again, and Mark Lamoree.
• FULL STORY
Letter to a Young Reader
by L. Neil Smith
I'm extremely sorry to have taken so long getting back to you. Our
family has been as busy with SkateFest 2002 as I imagine yours has
been. Your mom and dad tell me that you were disappointed to discover,
having read my novels Brightsuit MacBear and Taflak Lysandra, that
there weren't any more Mac and Elsie adventures in print for you to
enjoy.
• FULL STORY
Assassination and Sabotage: Are They the Libertarian Art of War?
by Patrick K Martin
Ok, so you're against the idea of napalming villages full of women and
children, but you do believe that we should defend ourselves against
foreign countries who feel the need to conquer our country and enslave
us, or just randomly butcher your fellow citizens to make a point. Now
sure, a well regulated (i.e., well trained and equipped) militia is
one of the best means of defense against an invasion we have, but, if
you stand only on the defense the enemy can just keep coming at you.
Vietnam and Korea are just two of the more recent examples of what
happens when you refuse to take the war to the enemy. Standing purely
on the defensive allows the enemy to grind away at your defenses, to
rebuild and resupply his forces to continue the war. If one wishes to
achieve victory, and a peace which is more than just a lull in an
ongoing war, one must destroy the enemy's capacity to continue
offensive operations.
• FULL STORY
Voluntary Money
by Curt Howland
When I find myself in the situation of presenting and defending some
of the bigger repercussions of non-aggression, there are several
subjects which I find myself up against the wall to prove, or
disprove, in order to justify the entirety of voluntary interaction as
a viable process. Vin Suprynowicz detailed one of these in his article
"Why does it always have to be roads?"
• FULL STORY
Response to "The Menace of the Libertarian Materialist"
by John
As a Libertarian "atheist who believes in evolution," I found myself
not only taking great exception to Bob Wallace's essay, I also
wondered what his point was.
• FULL STORY
Fat Guts, Fat Heads
by Carl Bussjaeger
Caesar Barber is fat. He says so himself. But where I might admit to
being lazy and choosing to eat too much for my activity level, Barber
has different explanation. Ronald McDonald made him do it.
• FULL STORY
Lon Horiuchi for President!
by Manuel Miles
All too frequently, I read at American web sites of the "danger" that
the USA "might" or "could become" a police state. This is proof, if
any be needed, that even supposedly libertarian Americans live in a
mental and emotional La-La Land. The United States of America has been a police state for many decades
already, (if not even since at least 1861).
• FULL STORY
Tipped Over
by Minority Mike
Stand at attention when I'm writin' at you, you subversive twinks! In
what may prove to be a futile attempt at savin' my own skin I've
joined up with Der Fuerher's, er, uh, President Bush's, Terrorism
Information and Prevention System. Are you eyeballin' me boy? Drop an'
give me 50! Now then, to help all you sissified-limp-Richard-safety-
at-any-price sheeple become good little federal snitches, er, uh,
patriotic terrorism fighters, I've outlined my daily regime. Those who
don't get with the program will be severely arrested. Get at it you
lemmings - and remember - Adolph, er, uh, George, has got his eye on
you!
• FULL STORY
A Little Over a Decade Ago
by Mark Lamoree
A little over a decade ago, I was flipping through channels when I saw
on CNN something that stopped me cold. The screen was filled with
chaos. People were dancing on top of the Berlin wall, ripping down its
guard towers, and smashing it to pieces with sledgehammers, picks, and
in some cases, bare hands. It was inconceivable. The gray monolith
that promised death for anyone foolhardy enough to challenge it was
being mocked and destroyed. For some time after that, every day seemed
to bring something new and wonderful-statues of Lenin being ripped
down and beheaded, all the dreary edifices of totalitarianism
destroyed one by one. Freedom, it appeared, had triumphed. Some went
so far as to declare the end of history.
• FULL STORY
Help Support TLE, click on our advertisement and affiliate
links even if you don't buy anything ... some of them will pay us for that!
Back to 2002 Issues Archive
