>To: 999 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Wizenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>Below is an open letter from Dr. John Hospers, first Libertarian Party
candidate for president and author of the first book explaining and
defending modern libertarianism.
-----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>An Open Letter To Libertarians
>by John Hospers
>
>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 l972, 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
loathe 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 an 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 Nazi 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 l962, 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Mail CNET Editors' Choice 2004. Tell them what you think. a
>
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
