THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 194, October 14, 2002

"YOU GOT TO TRUST US"


[Letters to the editor are welcome on any and all subjects. To ensure their acceptance, please try to keep them under 500 words. Sign your letter in the text body with your name and e-mail address as you wish them to appear.]


Letter from John Bryant, Derek Benner and David Engbers

Letter from Jonathan Taylor

Letter from John Slevin


MORE-ON "BS"

* * *

To: John Taylor, Editor, TLE - for publication

RE: Letters from the following persons regarding myself and my website published in TLE at [LTE]

John Lopez [johnlopez@hotmail.com]
Derek Benner [dabenner@attbi.com]
MacGregor K. Phillips [mkp@topsecretcrypto.com]
Jay P Hailey [jayphailey@juno.com]
David Engbers [Anarchist@SellMoreCars.com]

It seems clear that all of the letter-writers have a lot of trouble with the truth.

* Lopez implies that I commit crimes (or something close to it) with email

* Benner and Engbers claim that I use insults, but their claim rests on their inability to tell the difference between insults (substanceless name-calling) and criticism (substantive accusations)

* Phillips tells a whole pile of falsehoods, and then gives a set of quotes which supposedly support his statements, but in fact do not do so

* Hailey can't get past making insults

All this, however, pales in comparison to the fact that none of the letter-writers dare to deal with the truth, and in fact dance around it like Dracula drying to avoid a clove of garlic. What I mean is that not ONE of the letter-writers -- or for that matter, editor Taylor -- has ever actually tackled any of the arguments I have presented on my webpage,

[I'm inclined to disagree, but I'll leave that to the readers to decide - ed.]

altho most have delivered bushels of insults about the same page. Even Lopez could not muster a single argument against my response to an essay of his posted on Strike the Root.

To put it bluntly, the letter-writers are a bunch of cowardly intellectual lightweights (not an insult, just a fact) who are afraid to deal with ideas that might get themselves called 'racist', 'antisemite' or any of the other customary terms that the liberals use to shut people up who want to have a serious discussion of race. But prove me wrong, guys. Here is an invitation to actually deal with one or more of the many arguments that I present. Write me any time at john@thebirdman.org

I will not, of course, be so foolish as to hold my breath waiting for your response.

John Bryant [jbryant@idnsi.net]

* * *

I actually sent my letter that appears in the 10/06/2002 edition of TLE to John (dare I say) 'Birdman' Bryant.

What returned was informative.

You see, if I call Birdman a 'shit-eating, ass-kisser' I'm guilty of spewing insults and taking sanctuary in the last refuge of the out-argued.

On the other hand, if Birdman calls me a 'Foreskin-sucking Mick who prefers being butt-fucked by the illiterate, ignorant, mentally-defective Darkies of the World', he's just showing his fine skills at sarcasm.

There's a whole world of difference between intellectually brilliant sarcasm and idiotic insults, you see. And, if I had but the merest scrap of intelligence and education I would realize that fact. Or so I was told by the great John 'Birdman' Bryant.

Having examined the two definitions, I have found the difference. If Birdman says it, it's brilliant sarcastic wit. If anyone else says it about Birdman, it's a despicable and unethical insult.

OK, John 'Birdshit-for-Brains' Bryant, I understand. I have put a filter on to exclude your kind of filth from my system. C'YA!

P.S. The two example insults were not the specific insults and 'dramatic, sarcastic wit' traded between myself and Birdman. I just used them as generic examples of what kinds of phrases we might have exchanged. However, the insult embedded in his nickname in my last paragraph is just that, an insult. I'm making sure everybody understands so that there is no confusion of terminology.

Derek Benner [dabenner@attbi.com]

* * *

Editor & John 'Birdman' Bryant:

John 'Birdman' Bryant's response to my letter to the editor in the last issue of TLE includes these allegations:

<< Benner and Engbers claim that I use insults, but their claim rests on their inability to tell the difference between insults (substanceless name-calling) and criticism (substantive accusations)>>

I fail to see how John 'Birdman' Bryant's statement (about L. Neil Smith use of his middle name) "thereby overcoming the ordinariness of the name 'Smith'" can be considered "criticism (substantive accusations)" - what is the accusation? That 'Smith' is an 'ordinary name'? How can that be construed as "criticism"? Certainly "the Foreskinners" can be considered an insult, as it is "namecalling", unless John 'Birdman' Bryant sees "substance" in making a reference to infant medical procedures.

And:

<< the letter-writers are a bunch of cowardly intellectual lightweights (not an insult, just a fact) >>

I don't see how John 'Birdman' Bryant can claim it to be a "fact" that I am "cowardly" - unless he has some proof that I lack courage this just seems like another insult.

Followed by:

<< ... afraid to ... have a serious discussion of race >>

Well, I for one am not afraid to "have a serious discussion of race", so here goes:

'Race' is irrelevant. (For some reason, John 'Birdman' Bryant seems to think that followers of the religion known as Judaism are also somehow a specific 'race', blithely ignoring the fact that Jews and Moslems are genetically identical - so I am forced to conclude that when John 'Birdman' Bryant writes 'race' he really means 'religion')

Lest I be accused of being afraid to have a serious discussion of religion, here goes: 'Religion' is irrelevant. Libertarianism is not concerned with 'race' or religion or sexual orientation or music preferences - it is only concered with the non-initiation of force or fraud. Libertarians only care that the Non-Agression Principle is followed; all other issues are a matter of personal choice.

Libertarians cannot "have a serious discussion of race" because 'race' has nothing to do with the Non-Agression Principle!

Finally:

<< not ONE of the letter-writers ... has ever actually tackled any of the arguments I have presented on my webpage >>

To which my reply is simply that I can't take seriously anyone who must resort to insults and inuendo, not to mention that I doubt whether anyone who feels that 'race' is relevant to libertarianism can really be a libertarian (a conservative prehaps?).

If John 'Birdman' Bryant can ever present a coherent arguemnt about the Non-Agression Principle without resorting to insults, inuendo, or reference to 'race' or religion, then I might bother responding to his arguments.

David Engbers [Anarchist@SellMoreCars.com]


<< An unseen sniper shooting from a distance undermines the argument that people can prevent crime by owning firearms, said Nancy Hwa of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

<<'This shows that carrying a gun doesn't make you safer,' she said. >>


Source: www.msnbc.com/news/819677.asp?0bl=-0

Carrying a gun also doesn't prevent being struck by the Tesla Death Ray. And carrying an umbrella won't keep you from being struck by lightning -- but it will prevent you from drowning when you stare at the sky with your mouth open. Precisely what the fuck is your point?

Jonathan Taylor [fenris_wolf20@hotmail.com]


Again, Libertarian News is bragging about one of "our own"; and hoping its readers will reward them with more donations.

Again, the striving freedom fighters of the LNC have got it absolutely ass-backwards...and one needs to wonder:

Is there on the current LNC one decent person among those so-called Libertarians? On the LNC is there a real honest person who can stand-up and stop his/her thieving committee members from continuing to publish crap like LP News and spitting out more lies like that last fundraising letter sent by their esteemed Chairman?

This time, in their attempt to get bucks from unsuspecting Libertarians, they are touting the accomplishment of some lame Libertarian U.S. Senate candidate from New Jersey who tried to keep the Democrats from filling the Toricelli ballot slot for November by boldly going where Libertarians tend to go these days when they can't get any voters to pay them any attention---to court. [www.lp.org/lpnews/0211/macron.html]

The same unknown who wasn't mentioned in ANY national news coverage prior to this event, though both her Republicrat opponents have been all over the news because of the Toricelli abdication.

I mean the same Libertarian candidate who even now gets mention only in the rag, L.P. News, the rag the motto of which should be: We Tout Losers And Send Us Some More Money.

The Libertarian Party, by rights, does not own and should not control one damn ballot slot anywhere; nor should any political party. The Libertarian Party does not pay for the ballot, nor does any party...that's a taxpayer function. And when in hell did anyone change the Party platform to say that the Party controls the ballot? When did Libertarians start to stand for stealing from the taxpayers?

That some state laws long have been rigged to keep people off the ballot is a wrong; two wrongs don't make a right (unless you are the typical Libertarian candidate). Someone might have so informed Ms. Macron. In fact, I doubt she could have lived to adulthood without hearing that two wrongs don't make a right. How come it is typically Libertarian to "campaign" on the principle that wrong becomes right when L.P. News says it is?

In this party, some of us used to know that we support the right of all Americans to hold and to exercise their electoral franchise; we didn't have to be told that it was wrong to interfere with a free and open ballot. And alot of Libertarians worked their butts off to put the L.P. on the ballot across the country, and we never advocated or assisted in keeping non-Libertarians off the ballot.

In 2000, Carla "Give My Boyfriend Some More Money Because He Won't Get An Honest Job" Howell, stole from the taxpayers of Massachusetts to try and keep her Republican opponent off the ballot. Right now, Illinois Libertarians are reveling in their stupid scheme to try and score some money with a lawsuit against Republicans (that Republican money comes from real people who have contributed to the Republican Party, ignoring the L.P. as a suitable recipient, perhaps, because it is so lame).

Now we have Ms. Macron, the aforementioned lame New Jersey L.P. candidate, who doesn't tell us who told her that she has any right to determine who, otherwise constitutionally and morally qualified, should be on the ballot. But someone told her, because Ms. Macron seems like the typical Libertarian candidate, which means she is unable to think for herself.

Or, like so many of her fellow Libertarian candidates around the country, Ms. Macron doesn't seem to hold a shred of principle, not where personal gain for Ms. Macron and her holy L.P. is threatened.

Or, maybe Ms. Macron is a good and decent human being who has been slandered by the association with L.P. News.

It's possible, but I doubt it; and I only doubt it because Ms. Macron has not taken action to expose the hypocrisy of the publishers of L.P. News (and those publishers are the individual LNC members, who need to be exposed, each of them, individually and as a collective) for mentioning her in this way. So I presume that she had a part in putting out this latest news story, something she probably did in conjunction with one of the hired thieves in the Watergate.

Lie down with dogshit, Ms. Macron, sacrifice principle, and you get up soiled; me, I just don't vote for you and your kind, a position I take in company with virtually everyone else on the planet.

And if you are a decent human being, if your current associations are just part of a horrible misjudgement on your part, hell, don't worry about it, because we all make mistakes. Just try picking your associates more closely; being cited as a good person by the publishers of L.P. News is not a good thing; it just makes decent people think you are no good.

Fortunately, these typical Libertarian candidate simpletons do about as effective a job at keeping candidates off the ballot as they do anything else related to campaigns.

Because of Ms. Macron's misstep, no great harm will come to others, outside those who are still on the donor lists of the L.P. Most voters will continue to ignore the L.P., and with the sorry state of the typical Libertarian candidate, who can blame them?

Typical Libertarian candidates are no threat to anyone because they are so resolutely inept. And, Mr. Toricelli's dead uncle's long dead dog could get more votes than Ms. Macron. And again, Ms. Macron, that's not necessarily a slight on you, just a notice of how you and yours are perceived by decent people who don't read L.P. News and who do vote---and that's almost everyone in the world.

The L.P. used to stand for something. Go to hell you typically amoral L.P. candidates, and take those other unprincipled people with you---I hear Harry Browne might be hiring and you appear to meet his qualifications.

You haven't got a clue as to what it once meant to be Libertarian.

John Slevin [directaction@yahoo.com]


ADVERTISEMENT

You've read about it, now if you want to DO more FREEDOM in your life, check out:

[Are YOU Doing 
Freedom?]
Doing Freedom!

This ain't no collection of essays and philosophical musings!

Doing Freedom! Magazine and Services specializes in
hard-core, hands-on, how-to information that is meant to be
more than entertaining and interesting; our goal is to be useful.


Next
to advance to the next article
  Table of Contents
to return to The Libertarian Enterprise, Number 194, October 14, 2002