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

106

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 106, January 29, 2001
A Super Bowl of Hypocrisy


To: TLE@johntaylor.org
From: Doug Heard <doug@stone-soup.com>
Subject: Reply to Harry Browne

Mr. Browne is somewhat right in his response to me and I would like to accept the blame I am due. I fully agree that his definition of a libertarian to oppose:

"I think you should actively oppose a Libertarian candidate only if he is proposing to expand the government in some way, if he is offering only proposals that most Republicans or Democrats might support, or if he has a competitor for the nomination that you prefer."

And if I did not make it clear that I did vote for him then I should have.

There are other areas where I don't think Mr. Browne is radical enough and that mostly comes from the movement in the national party with the increase of what one of the detractors once called "dope smoking Republicans" a the controllers of the national party. ie. the emphasis on economic freedom rather than personal liberty. While I know that both are related most of the libertarians I know that have been around for a long time came from the left. Making them more "gun toting hippies vs. the dope smoking republicans".

Also like to apologize to Mr. Browne for saying that he didn't put his e-mail address in the original article. He did, I just read it as a URL.

While I will keep voting for the economic side candidates of the LP, I will keep believing that is the wrong approach to pushing the libertarian message. I doubt that Mr. Browne pulled more than two or three votes from Gore but I know that he pulled many from Bush. We should be pulling equally from both the left and the right.

doug heard


Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:54:47 -0600
From: Dr Peter Wilhelm
Reply-to: pdwil45@airmail.net
To: John Taylor
Subject: Re: TLE #105

"all politics is local" seems to have been forgotten by many libertarians especially the LP. any political movement must be founded on local politics. which by the way will when in control decide everything including national politics and national canidates. politics is a pyramid and needs a large base, it only falls down when you try to work it from the top down, a pyramid is unbalanced upside down

pete


Mon, 15 Jan 2001 13:33:40 -0800
From: "Joshua Freeman" <joshualfreeman@hotmail.com>
To: TLE@johntaylor.org
Subject: King

Why does "TLE" proclaim only "Happy Jackson - Lee Day!"? What about Martin Luther King? I am aware that this is probably not his real birthday. Let me guess: Some inane political reason.


From: "Jacob G. Hornberger"
To:
Subject: Letter to the Editor—The TLE
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 08:32:42 -0500

Letter to the Editor
The Libertarian Enterprise

Dear Editor: Harry Browne is being disingenuous when he states "that both Jacob Hornberger and R.W. Bradford have referred several times to evidence in the FEC (Federal Election Commission) reports that supposedly shows that practically none of the money raised by my 1996 or 2000 campaigns actually went in campaigning." (The Libertarian Enterprise No. 105.)

As Browne knows, my primary focus has always been on putting a permanent stop to the unethical policies and practices that Browne has brought into the Libertarian Party and that he and his friends are determined to continue into the future. These include his improper payment of money to LP officials as well as the improper use of LP general resources to advance the personal campaign interests of Browne and his buddies.

Rather than simply debate the ethics charges, Browne has chosen the time-honored ritual of a professional public office-seeker when faced with exposure of political wrongdoing: falsely deny the charges, call those who expose the wrongdoing liars, and hope that people don't ultimately discover the truth. But Liberty magazine, where Browne served as a senior editor for many years, and whose integrity has never been questioned by anyone, conducted a complete investigation of the ethics charges, including the examination of thousands of pages of official FEC documents. As Browne knows, Liberty determined that the ethics charges were indeed true and that Browne's denials were false.

Moreover, in an interview with one Peter J. Orvetti during the presidential campaign, Browne was forced to admit that he had in fact made the improper payments to LP officials, thereby also admitting that his earlier denial had been false. With the end of the election, time is Browne's worst enemy because people are slowly realizing that he isn't being straight with them.

If Harry Browne, either directly or indirectly, has once again sprinkled money into the pockets of former or present LP officials, why shouldn't LP members know about it, especially if LP officials intend to once again use party resources to advance the personal interests of Browne and his buds?

I have called for a certified audit of the Browne campaign, which would include identifying the ultimate recipients of monies paid by the LP and the Browne campaign to all organizations that have a close relationship to the Browne campaign, including one named "Optopia."

If Browne and his associate Perry Willis (who once claimed that conflicts of interest are a necessary part of the Libertarian Party) have nothing to hide, then why aren't they endorsing my call for a independent audit (and report) of their campaign expenditures?

At the 2002 LP national convention, LP members will have the choice of continuing the unethical paradigm that Browne and his cohorts have brought to the Libertarian Party or instead move in a new direction of ethics and integrity. If they continue to follow the paradigm of unethical conduct, they are dooming the party to more electoral debacles because the American people will never embrace a third party or a third-party candidate that lacks a commitment to integrity and ethics. The key to success lies with a paradigm based on integrity, ethics, truth, openness, and principle.

Jacob G. Hornberger
jgh@erols.com


From: Swftl@aol.com
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 18:27:03 EST
Subject: Re: TLE #105
To: John@johntaylor.org

<< Which brings us to the ultimate reason Dubya will grab our guns: the real government, the permanent government, requires it. >>

Don't we have any say in the matter? The Canadian government is trying to grab the Canadians' guns. They're not turning them in. Maybe we won't either.

—Susan Wells


From: Jonathan Taylor <Schattenwurm@aol.com>
To: tle@johntaylor.org
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 11:08:39 -0500

In recent issues, Mr. Browne has repeatedly challenged the assertion that he is not 'tough enough' on Libertarian issues, repeatedly complained about a decided lack of concrete assertions, and railed against vague allegations and innuendos. He is absolutely 100% correct—vague innuendos accomplish nothing.

Point number one: http://www.lp.org/issues/campplat/—Under the heading "The Platform of the Libertarian Harry Browne for President Campaign", the following statement is made. "Democrats want even more gun laws. Republicans want tougher enforcement of the existing gun laws. But the gun laws are bad laws—every one of them. In the presidential race, only Harry Browne, the Libertarian candidate, wants to repeal all these harmful laws—so you'll no longer be at a disadvantage to criminals."

My specific, fact based questions to you, Harry Browne. Are you then stating, based on the document quoted above, that you would publicly support the right of any United States Citizen to purchase, own, and carry—free from any manner of government interference, regardless of age—any weapon designed to be used by one person against one person or one small group of people? If so, why did you support the removal of the children's rights plank from the party platform in 1996? If not, how would you propose to enforce an age limit on weapons purchases without leaving in place an existing law?

If that purchaser did want to carry that weapon, would you require him or her to aquire some sort of permit or ID?

Under the LP platform(on the web at http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/protpriv.html) , adopted in convention, 1998 Washington D.C : "We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing." (As an aside—does that include drivers licenses to operate a motor vehicle? Licenses to obtain commercially available demolitions material? Dangerous chemicals?) Does that statement accurately reflect your position on concealed carry—that you oppose any form of government identification, certification, or permit in order for any United States Citizen to carry any concealed weapon they wish?

I challenge you, Mr. Browne, to answer those questions in a straight forward manner, truthfully, and completely. In doing so, you will have answered many of my questions regarding your legitimacy as a candidate within the Libertarian Party—as well as, I think, those of many readers of this fine magazine.

Jonathan Taylor


From: "Curtis Handsaker"
To:
Subject: Felons
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:38:43 -0500

I've got an idea. Eliminate the no-guns exception for violent felons. My feelings on this are: if a person can't return to society as a full member, they should not be allowed to return. Call it truth in sentencing, if society wants ten years for armed robbery, then our criminal does his ten and is finished. If armed robbery is such a heinous crime that the perpetrator needs to be punished forever, leave him in prison forever.

Curtis Handsaker
Bahnsidhe@ij.net


From: "Ben and Sylvia Olson" <bensylolson@ncn.net>
To:
Subject: new type face—ugh!
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 08:53:36 -0600

John,

I used to enjoy reading TLE, but since you changed to the large, all-caps type face, I can't bring myself to read it. It's really uncomfortable and annoying! Please reconsider, and go to a smaller, lower case-plus-caps style.

Thanks,

Sylvia Olson

[Does anyone else receive TLE looking this way? It certainly doesn't go out in such format, nor for that matter does it arrive here in such a format. But Sylvia is neither the first nor the only person to report this phenomenon. Any input is welcome.—ed.]

[Very odd. Why not just read it on the web?—webmaster]


From: "M. Mitchell Marmel" <marmelmm@drexel.edu>
To: TLE@johntaylor.org
Subject: Letter to the Editor
Date: Sunday, January 21, 2001 8:56 AM

A couple of thoughts on 105:

1) I like William Stone's concepts, both in terms of getting a Libertarian into Congress and running "None of the Above" on the Presidential ticket.

2) Stuart Sanders is, I think, on the right track, when looking at local abuses. An idea has been percolating beneath the surface of my brain for some time: Why not indulge in a slight bit of hyperbole in our campaigns?

My particular beef is with the Philadelphia Parking Authority, which has, over the course of the past couple of years, towed off two of my cars for minor infrarctions (two unpaid parking tickets, in one case, and lack of a licence plate in another). What I'd like to do as an ad campaign in Philadelphia is a poster showing a PPA truck towing off a hapless victim with the lettering "STOP THE TERROR!" Underneath, a few words about the PPA towing off private property for no good reason, along with an appeal to vote for the Libertarian candidate.

This method can be tailored to the individual neighborhood as well; in areas where residents are hassled by law-enforcement simply because of their ethnicity, show a picture of a resident cowering before a couple of the local constabulary. "STOP THE TERROR! Want The Man to stay off your back unless you got it coming? Vote Libertarian!"

Small business? "STOP THE TERROR! Tired of bureaucrats telling you when and where you can sneeze? Vote Libertarian!"

And so forth. I think it's time to step up the war of words a bit ...

M. Mitchell Marmel


Your Ad Here! If you have goods or services the readers of The Libertarian Enterprise would be interested in, why not Advertise in the web edition of TLE?


Next to advance to the next article, or
Table of Contents to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 106, January 29, 2001.