In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
An open letter to libertarians
Shootist3006
Member Posts: 4,171
For those who may be engaged in discussions with Libertarians ...
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1004/1004openletter.htm
An open letter to libertarians
By John Hospers
web posted October 25, 2004
Dear Libertarian:
As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first
presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in 1972, and was
the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing
libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party's
Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in
1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this
year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian
Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting
Americans.
There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is
no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties --
between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse:
that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion
could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the
cause of liberty.
The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly
realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current
campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the
International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill
Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of
the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a
transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong
defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson
are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party
belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic
Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the
contemporary Democratic Party.
Today's Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they
are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it,
including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for
them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is
construed as a defeat for them.
The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists,
radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government
employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the
Constitution and loath private property. It is opposed to free speech -
witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college
campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations that carry the
Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any
possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk
radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact "hate
speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine,
initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress
freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will
call it "defending human rights." This sort of activity may well make
up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have
no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against
opponents.
There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing
violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country,
and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a
word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to
increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by
the liberal-left mainstream media. This is ominous sign of worse things
to come.
Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us
that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed
repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military
establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on
the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the
Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the
withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as
saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under
the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small
cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other
world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning
private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and
environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has
demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security,
constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free
markets.
His wife's foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left
organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian
principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack
transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor
in a Kerry administration.
Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming
election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no
matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere
and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a
mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into
chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability
to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me
repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup
occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do
not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to
America.
George Bush has been criticized for many things - and in many cases
with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the
First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on
failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or
conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great
virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to
his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their
administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property.
Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as
bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence,
to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with "the
big one:" 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a
series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to
the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided
that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s
involving weapons of mass destruction, including "suitcase" nuclear
devices.
Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens
the world just as Nazis fascism and Soviet communism did in previous
decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-
Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in
wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of
nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the
same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal
religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.
The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal
with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot
Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on
reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of
it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign
that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer
a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam's regime is no longer a major
player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their
weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass
destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah.
Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands
of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude
safer.
National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely
excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a
party I attended in 1962, in response to complaints that "taxes are too
high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not the
amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much." And the
purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face
of vastly increased threats to its existence.
Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These
cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all
economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have
been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in
the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:
(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning
whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a
change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of
liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.
(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could
bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would
make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has
already repudiated any such change in social security laws.
The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a
completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes
time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans,
who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political
misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the
educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education
bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will
require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream
media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely
successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require
understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like
Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional
system of checks and balances. Most of all, it will require the
American people -- including many libertarians - to realize the
overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left - a Fifth Column
comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their
goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world-
wide Fascism. Thus far their long-term plans have been quite
successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to
infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a
continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the
way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against
the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the
weapons capability, to bring it to an end.
When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even
desirable, to vote for a `minor party' candidate who cannot possibly
win, just to "get the word out" and to promote the ideals for which
that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in
this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the
candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one
available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming
election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats
that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election
is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the
difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground" states
and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we
find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W.
Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.
We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of
liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty
and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the
Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote libertarian, we may win a tiny
rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.
John Hospers
Los Angeles, Ca
John Hospers was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1972
and the author of Libertarianism. He is currently a senior editor of
_Liberty_ [ http://www.libertyunbound.com/ ]
NRA ENdowment, CRPA Life, Past President NRA Members Council
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem. Semper Fidelis
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1004/1004openletter.htm
An open letter to libertarians
By John Hospers
web posted October 25, 2004
Dear Libertarian:
As a way of getting acquainted, let me just say that I was the first
presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party back in 1972, and was
the author of the first full-length book, Libertarianism, describing
libertarianism in detail. I also wrote the Libertarian Party's
Statement of Principles at the first libertarian national convention in
1972. I still believe in those principles as strongly as ever, but this
year -- more than any year since the establishment of the Libertarian
Party -- I have major concerns about the choices open to us as voting
Americans.
There is a belief that's common among many libertarians that there is
no essential difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties --
between a John Kerry and a George W. Bush administration; or worse:
that a Bush administration would be more undesirable. Such a notion
could not be farther from the truth, or potentially more harmful to the
cause of liberty.
The election of John Kerry would be, far more than is commonly
realized, a catastrophe. Regardless of what he may say in current
campaign speeches, his record is unmistakable: he belongs to the
International Totalitarian Left in company with the Hillary and Bill
Clintons, the Kofi Annans, the Ted Kennedys, and the Jesse Jacksons of
the world. The Democratic Party itself has been undergoing a
transformation in recent years; moderate, pro-American, and strong
defense Senators such as Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson
are a dying breed. Observe how many members of the Democrat Party
belong to the Progressive Caucus, indistinguishable from the Democratic
Socialists of America. That caucus is the heart and soul of the
contemporary Democratic Party.
Today's Democrats have been out of majority power for so long that they
are hungry for power at any price and will do anything to achieve it,
including undermining the President and our troops in time of war; for
them any victory for Americans in the war against terrorism is
construed as a defeat for them.
The Democratic Party today is a haven for anti-Semites, racists,
radical environmentalists, plundering trial lawyers, government
employee unions, and numerous other self-serving elites who despise the
Constitution and loath private property. It is opposed to free speech -
witness the mania for political correctness and intimidation on college
campuses, and Kerry's threat to sue television stations that carry the
Swift Boat ads. If given the power to do so, Democrats will use any
possible means to suppress opposing viewpoints, particularly on talk
radio and in the university system. They will attempt to enact "hate
speech" and "hate crime" laws and re-institute the Fairness Doctrine,
initiate lawsuits, and create new regulations designed to suppress
freedom of speech and intimidate their political adversaries. They will
call it "defending human rights." This sort of activity may well make
up the core of a Kerry administration Justice Department that will have
no truck with the rule of law except as a weapon to use against
opponents.
There are already numerous stories of brownshirt types committing
violence against Republican campaign headquarters all over the country,
and Democrat thugs harassing Republican voters at the polls. Yet not a
word about it from the Kerry campaign. Expect this dangerous trend to
increase dramatically with a Kerry win, ignored and tacitly accepted by
the liberal-left mainstream media. This is ominous sign of worse things
to come.
Kerry, who changes direction with the wind, has tried to convince us
that he now disavows the anti-military sentiments that he proclaimed
repeatedly in the l970s. But in fact he will weaken our military
establishment and devastate American security by placing more value on
the United Nations than on the United States: for example he favors the
Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court, and opposed the
withdrawal of the U.S. from the ABM Treaty. He has been quoted as
saying that it is honorable for those in the U.S. military to die under
the flag of the U.N. but not that of the U.S. Presumably he and a small
cadre of bureaucrats should rule the world, via the U.N. or some other
world body which will make all decisions for the whole world concerning
private property, the use of our military, gun ownership, taxation, and
environmental policy (to name a few). In his thirty-year career he has
demonstrated utter contempt for America, national security,
constitutional republicanism, democracy, private property, and free
markets.
His wife's foundations have funneled millions of dollars into far-left
organizations that are virulently hostile to America and libertarian
principles. Not only would these foundations continue to lack
transparency to the American people, they would be given enormous vigor
in a Kerry administration.
Already plans are afoot by the Kerry campaign to steal the coming
election via a legal coup, e.g. to claim victory on election night no
matter what the vote differential is, and initiate lawsuits anywhere
and everywhere they feel it works to their advantage, thus making a
mockery of our election process, throwing the entire process into
chaos -- possibly for months -- and significantly weakening our ability
to conduct foreign policy and protect ourselves domestically. Let me
repeat: we are facing the very real possibility of a political coup
occurring in America. Al Gore very nearly got away with one in 2000. Do
not underestimate what Kerry and his ilk are going to attempt to do to
America.
George Bush has been criticized for many things - and in many cases
with justification: on campaign finance reform (a suppression of the
First Amendment), on vast new domestic spending, on education, and on
failing to protect the borders. No self-respecting libertarian or
conservative would fail to be deeply appalled by these. His great
virtue, however, is that he has stood up -- knowingly at grave risk to
his political viability -- to terrorism when his predecessors, Ford,
Carter, Reagan, and Clinton did not. On many occasions during their
administrations terrorists attacked American lives and property.
Clinton did nothing, or engaged in a feckless retaliation such as
bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan (based on faulty intelligence,
to boot). Then shortly after Bush became president he was hit with "the
big one:" 9/11. It was clear to him that terrorism was more than a
series of criminal acts: it was a war declared upon U.S. and indeed to
the entire civilized world long before his administration. He decided
that action had to be taken to protect us against future 9/11s
involving weapons of mass destruction, including "suitcase" nuclear
devices.
Indeed, today it is Islamic fundamentalism that increasingly threatens
the world just as Nazis fascism and Soviet communism did in previous
decades. The Islamo-fascists would be happy to eliminate all non-
Muslims without a tinge of regret. Many Americans still indulge in
wishful thinking on this issue, viewing militant Islam as a kind of
nuisance, which can be handled without great inconvenience in much the
same way as one swats flies, rather than as hordes of genocidal
religious fanatics dedicated to our destruction.
The president has been berated for taking even minimal steps to deal
with the dangers of this war (the allegations made against the Patriot
Act seem to me based more on hysteria and political opportunism than on
reality). But Bush, like Churchill, has stood steadfast in the face of
it, and in spite of the most virulent hate and disinformation campaign
that any American president has had to endure. Afghanistan is no longer
a safe haven for terrorists. Saddam's regime is no longer a major
player in the worldwide terror network. Libya has relinquished their
weapons of terror. The Pakistani black market in weapons of mass
destruction has been eliminated. Arafat is rotting in Ramallah.
Terrorist cells all over the world have been disrupted, and thousands
of terrorists killed. The result: Americans are orders of magnitude
safer.
National defense is always expensive, and Bush has been widely
excoriated for these expenditures. But as Ayn Rand memorably said at a
party I attended in 1962, in response to complaints that "taxes are too
high" (then 20%), "Pay 80% if you need it for defense." It is not the
amount but the purpose served that decides what is "too much." And the
purpose here is the continuation of civilized life on earth in the face
of vastly increased threats to its existence.
Bush cut income tax rates for the first time in fifteen years. These
cuts got us moving out of the recession he inherited, and we are all
economically much better off because of them. 1.9 million new jobs have
been added to the economy since August 2003. Bush has other projects in
the wind for which libertarians have not given him credit. For example:
(l) A total revision of our tax code. We will have a debate concerning
whether this is best done via a flat tax or a sales tax. If such a
change were to occur, it would be a gigantic step in the direction of
liberty and prosperity. No such change will occur with Kerry.
(2) A market-based reform of Social Security. This reform, alone, could
bring future budget expenditures down so significantly that it would
make his current expenditures seem like pocket change. Kerry has
already repudiated any such change in social security laws.
The American electorate is not yet psychologically prepared for a
completely libertarian society. A transition to such a society takes
time and effort, and involves altering the mind-set of most Americans,
who labor under a plethora of economic fallacies and political
misconceptions. It will involve a near-total restructuring of the
educational system, which today serves the liberal-left education
bureaucracy and Democratic Party, not the student or parent. It will
require a merciless and continuous expose of the bias in the mainstream
media (the Internet, blogs, and talk radio have been extremely
successful in this regard over the past few years). And it will require
understanding the influence and importance of the Teresa Kerry-like
Foundations who work in the shadows to undermine our constitutional
system of checks and balances. Most of all, it will require the
American people -- including many libertarians - to realize the
overwhelming dangerousness of the American Left - a Fifth Column
comprised of the elements mentioned above, dedicated to achieving their
goal of a totally internationally dominated America, and a true world-
wide Fascism. Thus far their long-term plans have been quite
successful. A Kerry presidency will fully open their pipeline to
infusions of taxpayer-funded cash and political pull. At least a
continued Bush presidency would help to stem this tide, and along the
way it might well succeed in preserving Western civilization against
the fanatic Islamo-fascists who have the will, and may shortly have the
weapons capability, to bring it to an end.
When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even
desirable, to vote for a `minor party' candidate who cannot possibly
win, just to "get the word out" and to promote the ideals for which
that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in
this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the
candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one
available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming
election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats
that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election
is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the
difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground" states
and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we
find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W.
Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.
We stand today at an important electoral crossroads for the future of
liberty, and as libertarians our first priority is to promote liberty
and free markets, which is not necessarily the same as to promote the
Libertarian Party. This time, if we vote libertarian, we may win a tiny
rhetorical battle, but lose the larger war.
John Hospers
Los Angeles, Ca
John Hospers was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1972
and the author of Libertarianism. He is currently a senior editor of
_Liberty_ [ http://www.libertyunbound.com/ ]
NRA ENdowment, CRPA Life, Past President NRA Members Council
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem. Semper Fidelis
Comments
While this doesn't motivate me to support Bush, it does motivate me to never support John Hospers.
My thoughts on the Bush/Kerry race can be found at:
http://lestdarknessfall.blogspot.com/
under the 2004 Presidential Candidates Article.
http://lestdarknessfall.com
Yes, Kerry would make a horrible president, but he's just a product of the two-party system - THAT's the true evil in this country. Whatever Kerry or Bush do in the next four years will NEVER be undone as long as the two-party system remains in balance.
And it IS a balance, a gentleman's agreement if you will. The Republicans and Democrats have split the country so cleanly down the middle with their rhetoric that they don't need to win to stay in power. Every few years the house, senate or presidential seat changes hands while the other branchs of government go to the opposition (history tells us that Americans vote this way).
No good can come from voting for Bush or Kerry - only less "badness". I'd rather vote for someone I believe in than support someone I don't, and if every American voted their conscience Nader and Badnarik would be in the national debates four years from now.
www.ebsart.com
"Live by the three 'R's: Respect, Responsibility and Residuals."
Either you like the direction the "two" parties are taking this country, or you don't.
Vote accordingly.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
quote:Originally posted by Palantirion
After much thought on this subject, I'm still voting for Badnarik http://badnarik.org/.
Yes, Kerry would make a horrible president, but he's just a product of the two-party system - THAT's the true evil in this country. Whatever Kerry or Bush do in the next four years will NEVER be undone as long as the two-party system remains in balance.
And it IS a balance, a gentleman's agreement if you will. The Republicans and Democrats have split the country so cleanly down the middle with their rhetoric that they don't need to win to stay in power. Every few years the house, senate or presidential seat changes hands while the other branchs of government go to the opposition (history tells us that Americans vote this way).
No good can come from voting for Bush or Kerry - only less "badness". I'd rather vote for someone I believe in than support someone I don't, and if every American voted their conscience Nader and Badnarik would be in the national debates four years from now.
www.ebsart.com
"Live by the three 'R's: Respect, Responsibility and Residuals."