January 1998
The Mailbox
Libertarian personals
I thought I would offer an alternative to #8 in the "21 Mentions" article in the December LP News. [A personal ad in a Seattle newspaper advised "no drunks, addicts, or libertarians."]Several months ago I placed my own ad in the Chicago alternative newspaper The Reader, in which I cited myself as a "Renaissance woman, 5'4", 25, Jewish, slender, fiction writer (mystery and science fiction), libertarian. . ." (ending with the hope that I would not begin to feel like a mere list of attributes!).
In the 40 or so responses were at three men who cited themselves as libertarian, and several others who seemed positive about the idea. So there are definitely some good mentions of libertarians in the personal ads!
-- Tracey S. Rosenberg, Aurora, Illinois
World-class quote
I think that Bob Multer's letter [October LP News] contained a world-class quote: "The whole concept [of government racial classification] is a sad joke. We may all be 'out of Africa' originally, but we're all here now. There is no Constitutional basis for asking where our ancestors have been, and no libertarian reason to care."This statement can be the basis for eye-opening debates, discussions, and classroom essays. There are possible refinements that could enhance this quote as well as paraphrases that will work as high-impact soundbites. In any case, I am planning to make a sign with this quote and hang it on my office wall.
Seems to me the Libertarian Party can get a lot of miles out of it. What do you think?
-- J. Steve Welstand, Pinole, California
Misleading bumpersticker
"Enough Is Enough" used to be a Libertarian Party slogan. Now it is the name of an anti-libertarian organization that advocates more censorship by the government.To minimize public confusion, the Libertarian Party should stop selling bumperstickers with that slogan. Members should put new bumperstickers over those old, but now misleading, stickers.
-- Leonard Schwartz, Oak Park, Michigan
Smoke-free liberty
I had to lend my support to Grant Kuhns' wise analysis of the difference between smoking and other "vices" [November LP News]. Smoking is one issue for which I can't defend the Libertarian laissez faire attitude. I suffered greatly for years in the workplace from noxious second-hand smoke in the days when smokers had all the rights. Each workday was a misery for me. I don't need any statistical reports to tell me how harmful those fumes were to me.People have a right to smoke, but they don't have the right to force their habit onto those of us wise enough to abstain. I applaud the government telling people to "take it outside."
-- Donna Rickard, Poulsbo, Washington
Coffee-free liberty
If, as Grant W. Kuhns asserts, "a person's right to burn tobacco should stop at... the tip of another person's nose," so should a person's right to brew coffee!Mr. Kuhns is sensitive to tobacco smoke and experiences it as a physical assault. I am sensitive to coffee "aroma" and know, first-hand, that coffee "aroma" is a form of physical assault. When someone pours a cup of hot coffee, I lose my "choice" not to indulge that person's habit, and I experience physical discomfort.
Besides, coffee "aroma" contains significant quantities of known carcinogens and may pose a cancer risk at least as great as "secondhand smoke."
For society to accommodate people like me for whom coffee "aroma" is literally sickening as well as people for whom coffee is a compelling addiction, society needs to tolerate freedom of choice. As long as I can choose a pleasant "atmosphere" instead of a "Starbuck's atmosphere," then the fact that coffee "aroma" is a painful physical assault to me is of little consequence.
The dynamic free market is the only mechanism I know of that can give us all the choices we value -- for me, the choice to avoid the assault of coffee "aroma" and enjoy the company of others who appreciate the fragrant smoke of fine tobacco.
-- Don Ellis, Boulder, Colorado
Sabrin confusion
Murray Sabrin and his campaign staff deserve praise for raising the funds required to be admitted to the NJ gubernatorial debates. Sabrin is articulate and got a lot of the Libertarian philosophy conveyed to the public.The message of less taxes, less spending, less regulation, less government was well presented -- but unfortunately, I think most of his protest votes came on an issue that is not a Libertarian Party position. Sabrin was perceived as the "Right-to-Life" candidate in a race against a pro-choice Democrat and a Republican governor who had vetoed a late-term abortion ban from her Republican legislature.
Sabrin didn't bring it up, but when asked about abortion his answer was that if you define life as beginning at conception, then the answer is clear. That is a good answer for Libertarians who believe that way -- but at least a few newspaper editorials and columnists commented on the apparent contradiction regarding less government.
Hopefully, the relatively high Libertarian vote total will result in more interest in and examination of the libertarian less-government philosophy. Again, congratulations to Prof. Sabrin.
-- Ronald K. Wishart, Englishtown, New Jersey
Matching funds: No
The reason for the Murray Sabrin campaign's controversy is quite simple. First, it did not work -- i.e., Sabrin lost. Second, it was a moral compromise which accomplished no tactical purpose. When our major candidates demonstrate that they do not agree with our principles, it is, to say the least, less than productive for our purpose.The American people have undergone a 60-year experiment in nihilistic conditioning. In the process they have forgotten what it is to be a free and independent entity. They cannot even comprehend the concept of making their own decisions and living with the consequences thereof.
When we as Libertarians adopt the Leviathan's tactics to defeat it, we should remember the admonition: Beware of dragons, for if you slay too many you risk becoming one. The greatest power of a totalitarian regime is its ability to force its enemies to adopt its tactics.
-- Gregory B. Harp, Oldsmar, Florida
Matching funds: Yes
I strongly defend the decision by our recent gubernatorial candidate, Murray Sabrin, to accept public matching funds in his race for governor. So long as the funds come from a voluntary check-off system, they are not in contradiction to party principles.Moreover, accepting and using them not only got him into the debates, it instantly made him credible in the eyes of the media. I cannot tell you what a joy it was to pick up the newspaper every day, or to turn on the TV and radio, and see his campaign covered on a par with the Republicans and Democrats.
I've been a party member for years, but this is the first time I worked on a campaign and the first time I felt my contributions were well spent, because I saw the results every time I drove down the road, picked up the paper or turned on the TV. Sabrin is to be applauded, not criticized, for an outstanding effort.
-- Pat Bontempo, Asbury Park, New Jersey
Constitutional image
In response to the statement made by Keith Mitchell Donat in The Pulse section [November LP News] that "the LP seems too much like a conservative party ... because it places too much emphasis on the Constitution and Founding Fathers." Mr. Donat should be reminded that it is the Bill of Rights that proclaims his "individual right" to run down our Constitution and Founding Fathers.I would also say to the Libertarian Party that I want us to grow and have a positive image. But the development of a positive image should not in any way include ignoring the Constitution. I left a major party because it ignored and abused our constitutional freedoms. So, if we want individual rights, the LP cannot abandon our current constitutionalist position.
-- Robert Howard, Houston, Texas
