SITE SEARCH

THE BASE Ideas Web Services Goods Site Map

WEB SERVICES Site Development Site Promotion Web Hosting Domain Names E-Mail General Help

GOODS Jewelry Clothing Hats Literature Miscellaneous

CHOICES Libertarianism Objectivism News Reference Poetry & Literature Philosophy Formula 1

THE SUMMIT Writings Travels Family Friends MotorSports Art

Print Paragraph 

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

Liberals and conservatives alike grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. They do so to further their respective ends with little or no regard for how much of the national income government takes from the people. By so doing, both foster diminished individual liberty -- as laws are enacted and regulations created, and as taxes are leveied to implement and enforce them.

Tazation erodes freedom most egregiously when growth in the percentage of the national income consumed by government exceeds the growth of our national income. In 1902, government (at all levels) consumed eight percent of our natainal income. (U.S. Census Bureau) In the late 1990's, it consumed forty-seven percent. (Ibid.) In other words, government at all levels now decides how roughly half of our income is to be spent. We are free to decide how to spend only the remainder.

If growth in government spending continues to exceed the growth of national income in the present century as inthe past--and there is ample reason to believe it will--by the year 2100 it will inevitably consume close to one hundred percent. In that case, our freedom to use the fruits of our labor as we choose and to act freely will be virtually gone--an intolerable end.

The knee-jerk reaction to this is that is simply will not happen, which begs the question: Then what will happen? A definitive prediction is not possible, of course. Yet, in the absence of affirmative action to alter our government's present course, it is reasonable to predict major social, economic and political disruptions.

Only we the people can alter our government's present course, and only libertarian political philosophy offers a viable alternative to contemporary liberalism and conservatism. I, therefore, embrace the libertarian political philosophy as embodied in the Statement of Principles, drafted by Dr. John Hospers, head of the Philosophy Department at the University of Southern California, in 1972. It has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and now reads:

We, the members of the Libertarian party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.

We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.

We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely (1) the right to life - accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action - accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property - accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud and misrepresentation.

Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.

Hello, Charlie,

On December 19, last year (2002), you forwarded an email message you had received from your friend Nick T* to me, entitled "Descent into Slavery". The final paragraphs, describing how rampant taxation ultimately led to the collapse of the Roman Empire, prompted me to send you an essay I had written explaining why I had become a Libertarian. You forwarded it to a number of your friends, and that in turn led to an intelligent, enlightening and delightful exchange of correspondence between you, your friends and myself.

The thought of adding to that exchange, albeit belatedly, is daunting. But I feel compelled to respond to a number of the points you and your friends contributed. Please forgive me if I rattle on too long, as I fear I may. Here it goes …

In response to my assertion that (libertarians) believe individuals have the right to ingest whatever noxious substance they may wish, as long as they harm no one else as a consequence … and that this is hardly a widely held view among conservatives, you replied that "Bill Buckley and others at National Review would be surprised to learn this … and that Barry Goldwater early on supported legalization of marijuana."

I know that Bill Buckley has long held an enlightened view on the War on Drugs, but I did not know about Goldwater's position on marijuana, of which I certainly approve. Even so, I hold to the view that their positions are hardly widely held among conservatives. I hear no one among the ranks of elected Republicans (excepting ex-Governor Gary Johnson of New Mexico), nor among conservatives generally (though undoubtedly there are some), crying out for the abolition of that War.

With regard to your colorful comments on homosexuality, it appears that you and I hold much the same views: we both find its practice, to put it mildly, highly distasteful. But you grant homosexuals the right to exist in peace, even as you object, as I do, to the tendency some of them have to promote, even flaunt their predilections. You sound like a libertarian on this one, at least a heterosexual one.

(Incidentally, although it is a little beside the point here, I am not sure homosexuality is abnormal, as you suggest. It may be, of course, but in the absence of objective data to prove the point, it seems to me likely to be no less normal than, say, left-handedness. Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree on this.)

More to the point, however, is that laws banning the performance of certain consensual sexual acts, in private, still do exist. Fourteen states, Puerto Rico and our armed forces have them. And given the extent of litigation over the matter, both current and in recent years, it is evident that many people are still trying to enforce them. (Incidentally, on December 8, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to revisit sodomy laws.)

Additionally, to further make the point that conservatives do seek to enforce what they deem to be proper conduct, I could add their efforts to criminalize abortion, enforce laws in favor of capital punishment, against prostitution, and others.

You later asserted that " … it is Liberals who demand that 'proper conduct' be enforced: No smoking, no insecticides, eat only vegetables for meat causes violence, no reprimanding any sort of behavior for that would be 'judgmental'."

I agree, and I could add a few examples of my own, although I believe the conduct liberals seek to enforce is generally less pernicious than the conduct conservatives seek to enforce. Frankly, I am embarrassed and appalled that I failed to recall that truth. I suppose I was so bent on trying to simply distinguish between liberalism and conservatism, and that I was so pleased with the distinctions that I still believe I had correctly made, that is, conservative: proper conduct; liberal: economic equality -- that I momentarily overlooked the truth: namely, that both liberals and conservatives seek to enforce their respective views of proper conduct. I still think it is valid, however, to additionally attribute a desire to enforce principles of economic equality to liberals.

It is clear to me now, and I thank you and your friends for this, that the distinctions I wrote are inadequate and overly simplistic. This means that I need to, and will, rewrite the first two sentences of my essay, to wit: Liberals seek to enforce what they deem to be principles of economic equality. Conservatives seek to enforce what they deem to be proper conduct. Obviously, there needs to be more to both definitions of their respective philosophical positions, even if one tries to express them as succinctly as possible.

With regard to the liberal objection to judgmentalism, that is, to coming down on the side of what we believe is right and against what we believe is wrong, I absolutely agree with you. Further, I deplore the liberals' penchant for stifling any support or speech for whatever they consider politically incorrect; I deplore their efforts to inhibit or deny people's right to free speech as, for example, when they physically removed copies of the Yale Daily News, which ran David Horowitz' full-page statement of objections to some of their views from students' mailboxes.

[On this matter, I highly recommend The Lost Art of Drawing the Line - How Fairness Went Too Far, by Philip K. Howard, published by Random House in 2001. On the book's dust jacket, someone wrote, "This new fairness has also led to the collapse of our common good. A few decades ago there were no warnings on hot coffee. Schools weren't perfect, but they weren't out of control. Today, instead of making obvious decisions, principals, teachers, doctors, (I would add 'often judges'), and others who deal with the public go through the day looking over their shoulders. In the land of free speech, you'd have to be a fool to say what you really think."]

Right and wrong are facts of life. We may or may not agree on what they are, but we can and should make moral judgments and act on them when appropriate. The only caveat I would add, however, is that such judgments should be based on objective reasoning, not on gut feelings, emotion, bias, or even faith. Too many conflicts, including wars, have been based on such subjective reasoning, with often-disastrous consequences.

Even later, you affirm that, "Conservatives think that man's nature contains good, but much less good than bad, and that we should prepare for the bad (noticing that Good is not going to destroy us)". You effectively quote from Housman's "Shropshire Lad" to support your affirmation.

I agree that we should prepare for the bad, but without regard for whether or not man's nature contains more bad than good "(noticing that Good is not going to destroy us)." Respectfully, though, I must disagree with conservatives and Housman (such brazen temerity), since I believe that man's nature contains more good than bad. The evidence of this is all around us to see: most nations are not at war or even threatening war; far more people strive to do the right thing most of the time than not; and most people are kind to others far more often than they are unkind. The reason for this is evident: it behooves man to do good rather than evil, simply as a matter of self-interest or self preservation. We all understand this, deep within our beings, even if not all of us intellectualize it. If it were not so, the world would be a far more chaotic, dangerous and miserable place than it is; society would collapse of its own weight. I also believe, incidentally, that if enough good people strive hard enough to do the right thing, to be kind and decent to one another, the world can be a better place than it is. Does that make me a starry-eyed, misguided idealist or a realist? I think the latter, but would entertain arguments to the contrary.

When I wrote at some point in our exchange that I hoped you now better understand what I mean by conservatives seeking to enforce what they deem to be proper conduct, you replied, "I understand it now. And I don't agree with you". Fair enough. But then you went on to say, "If we leave men entirely alone to do what they like, they will do almost anything to make money, porn for kiddies, et al. Are thinking human beings to stand by, non-judgmentally silent, while their standard are destroyed?" That sounds to me like a strong argument in favor of enforcing what you deem to be proper conduct.

But no, I absolutely do not believe "thinking human beings should stand by, non- judgmentally silent, while their standards are being destroyed". They definitely should be judgmental (see above) and do everything in their power to oppose such things as kiddie porn ¾ short of outlawing it, since freedom of expression, even expression I despise, is still a fundamental American right. Kiddie porn per se is not inherently evil; the violence it may provoke definitely is, and the libertarians I know favor laws against the initiation of violence.

Laws intended to regulate immoral behavior really don't work, anyway. They may inhibit such behavior but not enough to justify the loss of freedoms they inevitably entail. Take the War on Drugs, for example. I don't know how many more police officers, customs officers, border patrolmen, ATF agents, sophisticated weapons, helicopters and herbicides we will need to enforce our drug laws. Nor do I know how many more judges and court facilities we will need to ensure fair trials for all the drug law offenders. Neither do I know how many more prisons it will take to incarcerate the huge number of people who have violated and keep violating the drug laws, despite the laws. How will we protect the freedoms of citizens from often-unjustified and sometimes illegal searches of their properties for illegal drugs? How do we justify the laws, knowing most violations are victimless. Similarly, how do we justify the fact that drug law offenders, on the average, spend more years in prison than murderers do? How will we extricate ourselves from the mess we have created in Colombia, where our efforts have caused the national government officially to cede control of a major part of their country to the drug lords? Finally, how many more billions of our tax dollars will we need to win this insane War on Drugs?

Moving on … Your friend Bill G* states that "There is a sort of semantic principle at work also which says: 'Whenever you define something, that's what it isn't!' - the tighter one makes the rules, the more the exceptions emerge". This is a partial truth. Exceptions may be inevitable, but it is clearly possible to make valid generalizations.

The difficulty with succinct definitions of political philosophies stems from the fact that people of every political persuasion, other than libertarian, typically force every issue into the left-right spectrum. Libertarians, on the contrary, place issues in the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum. The closer they can place them to the libertarian end, the happier they are; conversely, the closer they see them to the authoritarian end, the unhappier they become. Hence, for example, they oppose the enforcement of laws intended to stamp out the use of illegal drugs (conservative), just as, for another example, they also oppose the enforcement of laws intended to ban smoking (liberal). Libertarians are dismayed by both such laws, since, regardless of whether they approve of drug ingestion or not, or of the inhalation of noxious smoke or not, they see freedom being frittered away by both as a consequence. Every law that is enacted lessens someone's precious freedom, and as more and more laws are passed, eventually, inevitably, everyone's freedom. (That's an interesting juxtaposition, isn't it? Let's outlaw using the drugs of which I, the conservative, disapprove, and ban cigarette smoking of which I, the liberal, disapprove. That's the ticket!) Libertarians ask, How much freedom are you both willing to give up, and whose?

Bill G* questions the difference between a (small-l) libertarian and a Libertarian. Paul E* clearly and correctly spelled out the distinction, the essence of which I hope he won't mind me restating as follows: A (small-l) libertarian is one who believes in libertarian principles and a Libertarian is a member of the political party.

Paul E*, who defines himself as a "Small L" libertarian, also writes "The party finds itself in the difficult position of stumping for seats in the very government that they labor to trim down to size. That's rather like proselytizing atheism. (How do you wave a flag for nothing?)" That is presumably why he defines himself as a "Small L" libertarian.

Bill H* evidently agrees, stating that "The Libertarian goals are, in my opinion, idealistic but unrealistic, given the fallibility of mankind". (And therefore, presumably not worth fighting for).

In the same vein, Don I*, responding to Will C* states, "I still hold with my R for the same reason you do … practical to have a number of voices supporting more points in common with yourself than someone out of voting power in government, printing pamphlets but not getting anyone elected. If you can't elect enough people to office to move things in a political direction", he asks, "how smart can you be?" To that, I reply, with all due respect: If you can't stop the loss of your freedoms, meekly succumbing to legislators' deplorable propensity (using our money) to further their respective liberal or conservative views of how we all should live, how smart can you be?

More seriously, though, my response to Paul, Bill (H*), Don and Will is that, while it may or may not be unrealistic, even fruitless to become active in the party in order to gain political office, it is nonetheless worthwhile to do so and to "wave a flag" in order to promote libertarian ideas and ideals. Running for public office as a Libertarian or supporting those who do are just two ways of waving the Libertarian flag. Others include supporting publications such as Reason, as well as organizations like Cato, the Heartland Institute and others, or just engaging in exchanges such as the one in which we are, and anything else that may help people better understand libertarianism or favorably influence governmental policies. For me, as a small-l and large-L Libertarian, to do otherwise would be to abandon or compromise my principles. (Yet I nonetheless reserve my right to vote for whomever I choose, of whatever political stripe).

Before moving on, consider the following points:

1. More than three hundred Libertarians, admittedly a small number,but more than all other "third parties" combined, currently hold elective office in the United States.
2. In Massachusetts also known as Taxachusetts) the 2002 Libertarian ballot initiative to end the state income tax garnered 46.6% approving votes out of the total. Is that a wake-up call for the politicians around the country or what?

As evidence that libertarians are "idealistic and unrealistic" Bill H* presumes that libertarians (large and small-l ones) eschew the use of force as one reason for believing they are "unrealistic". As "... one simple example", he asks, "how could one, without the use of force, resist the assault of a criminally-inclined man on a bank containing one's life savings? Try to build every bank impregnable to explosives? Impregnable to bank presidents?" He wrote more on this in the same vein, but I think you get his point.

And Will C* says that, "I was not aware that the Libertarian creed eschewed the use of force". He goes on to observe that, "Until mankind is at a considerably greater remove from its tree-swinging antecedents than is presently the case, I think those who wish to acquire or maintain rights of freedom will have to fight for them". I agree.

It is clear that we must fight for our freedoms and security, even resorting to force, if necessary -- and I suspect Paul E* does, too. So I hope he will not mind my simply quoting his admirably pertinent words on this issue of force, which follow:

Just as evolution does not assert that man descended from monkeys, libertarianism does not insist that the use of force is evil. The principle is that an individual (or collection of individuals who in either case remain individually responsible) may not initiate the use of force, because that inevitably compromises another's rights.

Now, libertarians vary widely as to what the proper response to force should be, but I would say that ultimately, force must be answered in kind. The preservation of one's rights requires that individuals be capable of resisting efforts to strip them away. The price for attempting to usurp the rights of another man is the loss of my own rights.

Thank you, Paul. Well said.

But now, coincidentally, comes a challenge to my confidence in that view, which my libertarian friends share: namely, the President's Pre-emptive Strike Doctrine. A friend of mine recently told me that an officer of the American Humanist Association named * * Werner, recently told him that "The old rule of non-aggression for someone who has not attacked you is not valid in the new world of massive destructive weapons." Subject to being satisfied that an enemy has such weapons or is developing them, with obviously malicious intent, and given the potential worldwide destructiveness of those weapons, I am sadly inclined to agree. I think Libertarians need to revisit their views on the initiation of force, and may need to revise them.

On the subject of defining libertarianism, Bill G* wrote "Libertarians do not oppose the use of drugs, leaving it up to the choice of the individual. Liberals and Conservatives believe drugs to be immoral because they are destructive to self and society and pass laws to protect the more vulnerable elements in society. This is just another example of where Libertarianism goes much further right than what centrists such as myself find comfortable."

First, libertarians do oppose the abuse of drugs (and alcohol), but also oppose laws that take away their freedom to use them responsibly. Libertarians believe that people should always accept responsibility for all their acts. If their irresponsible behavior causes physical harm to others or to others' property, or if they defraud others, they should be held responsible for that it.

Secondly, I was unaware that "Liberals and Conservatives (equally) believe drugs to be immoral because they are destructive to self and society". Undoubtedly, there are liberals and conservatives who do believe that, but on the left-right spectrum, I believe it is the conservatives who would hold that view far more than the liberals. After all, it was the liberals of the sixties and seventies counterculture who unleashed the widespread abuse of drugs on our society. And it was the conservatives who declared the War on Drugs and still most fervently support it.

Thirdly, it is precisely to those who "pass laws to protect the most vulnerable in our society" that libertarians object. Libertarians absolutely reject the notion of the nanny state. Why should those who behave irresponsibly, "the most vulnerable", be "protected" at the expense of those who behave responsibly? Libertarians are not heartless. If some of the "most vulnerable" do temporarily require help, their families, friends, churches and charitable organizations would readily give a helping hand -- particularly if government were to get out of the business of helping the "vulnerable", and take less of the fruits of our labor.

On this issue -- if one must place it on the left-right spectrum -- these views admittedly fall to the right, just as views on other issues often fall to the left. But, as mentioned earlier, that's not the measure of libertarianism. On the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum, this issue clearly falls to the libertarian end, on the side of freedom. Everyone, conservative or liberal, trumpets the virtue of freedom -- even as they go about restricting someone else's freedoms. What determines where each issue falls on the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum is the degree to which it may enhance or diminish freedom.

Finally, there is a widely held and erroneous belief that libertarian views are utopian, and that libertarians believe that if such views are promoted long enough and effectively enough, a utopian, perfect society can be achieved. There is also a widely held and equally erroneous belief that libertarians are anarchists, opposed to any sort of government. I suspect you already know that Libertarians are neither utopians nor anarchists. Just thought I'd mention it.

Libertarians believe in limited, Constitutional government. In the simplest terms, that means that they favor the government prescribed by the United States Constitution, which includes our Bill of Rights. Just as many Americans trumpet the virtue of freedom, but are willing to restrict someone else's freedom, they also speak with great pride of our constitution, while largely ignoring the limits it places on government. Libertarians do neither.

And here are my answers to Bill G*'s list of questions about who would take care of what in what he perceives to be an overly idealistic libertarian world. The questions are:

1. Do Libertarians require a police force and, if so, who runs it? Who pays for it?
2. Are governmental agencies (local, state and national) needed in case of …(long list follows of what he would define as governmental functions)?
3. Who is to regulate such agencies? Who is to pay for them? How shall such moneys be raised?
4. Who decides the above question?
5. How are disagreements affecting society adjudicated? (List of examples).
6. How are questions decided? (By whom I would say).
7. How do we deal with international relationships?
8. What is our posture regarding the U.N.?

The answers to all, of course, are we the people, the judiciary, the legislature, police, and (only-defensive) armed forces --all strictly limited as admirably prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.

(Not incidentally, if you or anyone you know wishes to own a personal copy of our forefathers' Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution of the United States, please feel free to let me know. I would be delighted to send one to you or to them, as a gift. Honestly).

George Washington said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

Similarly, Thomas Paine wrote, "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one".

Those are highly libertarian views, small-l or large-L.

Cheers, Ron

P.S. I am astonished that no one commented on what I believe is the most portentous statement in my essay, entitled "Why I Am a Libertarian;" namely, the second paragraph. To see that paragraph in context, here is the essay again, excepting The Statement of Principles.

Liberals seek to enforce what they deem to be principles of economic equality and proper conduct. Conservatives seek to enforce what they deem to be principles of capitalism and proper conduct. To further their ends both grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor, with little or no regard for how much of the national income government takes from the people. By so doing, both foster diminished individual liberty -- as laws are enacted and regulations created, and as taxes are levied to implement and enforce them.

Taxation diminishes liberty most egregiously when growth in the percentage of the national income consumed by government exceeds the growth of the national income. In the early years of the last century, government consumed less than ten percent of our national income*. It now consumes close to fifty percent**. If the growth in government spending continues to exceed the growth of national income in the present century as it did in the past, by the year 2100 it will inevitably consume close to one hundred percent. In that case, our freedom to use the fruits of our labor as we choose will be virtually gone: an intolerable end.

I therefore embrace the libertarian political philosophy as embodied in the Statement of Principles, drafted by Dr. John Hospers, head of the Philosophy Department at the University of Southern California, in 1972. It has remained virtually unchanged to this day, and now reads:

P.P.S. See, I told you I thought I might rattle on too long.

Charlie,

Please thank Bill for writing that "(Ron) writes well and is a pretty good hand at articulating the Libertarian viewpoint". It was kind of him to say so.

In relation to political philosophy he wrote, "Are we willing to accept a lower level of security for enhanced freedom or are we willing to sacrifice some of our desired freedoms in order to provide additional security to members of society?"

I thought about that for quite a while, then decided that Benjamin Franklin might have replied, and I quote him here, as follows: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". To that I would say amen. In contexts such as the current War on Terror and others, it is well-worth remembering.

But I don't think that is the kind of context Bill had in mind. I think he may have had economic security, rather than physical security, in mind.

Remember that he wrote "…the only range of thought in this matter is the 'freedom vs. security' spectrum." Then later, as if it means the same thing, he refers to the "Economic Security (presumably conservative?) vs. Social Security (presumably liberal?) spectrum." So what he may have meant by his question is: Are we willing to accept a lower level of our own financial security in order to provide additional economic security to those less successful than ourselves, or not? (Words in parentheses, here and below, are mine).

He goes on to say that, "Libertarians see conservatives and liberals occupying only the horizontal spectrum (Economic Security - Social Security), while they are outside of this 'narrow view'". He says that Libertarians "…placing themselves on the vertical spectrum [Authority (Hitler and Stalin at one extreme?) - Freedom (anarchy at the other?)], perceive themselves as the only ones truly concerned with issues of 'freedom and security'."

"This is, of course, rubbish", he says. And he is absolutely right; it is not only rubbish, but unadulterated bunk as well. Libertarians are well aware that almost everyone favors freedom, and that that is good.

Later he adds, "We should not let Libertarians decide that conservatives and liberals alike are all 'Authoritarians' (which libertarians decided that?) as opposed to Libertarians who are the only ones endorsing concepts of freedom". Again, more rubbish and bunk.

In the first place, libertarians, by definition, believe each of us should be free to politically place ourselves wherever we please. It would be futile, in any event, to believe otherwise.

Secondly, he places the words "narrow view" and "Authoritarian" in quotation marks (above) without attribution. I have never used them in the context he does, nor would I; nor have I ever heard any libertarian use them that way.

Thirdly, since I have never heard of the Economic Security -Social Security spectrum, I can hardly be charged with placing myself "outside 'this narrow view'," just as I doubt other libertarians can be, for the same reason.

Libertarians do acknowledge the liberal - conservative spectrum as a useful one, which, in any event, exists. We are sometimes irritated, however, by the efforts of others to judge our position on each issue based on how conservative or liberal that position may be. That is because both liberals and conservatives are inclined to support freedom for everyone to do what they think are good things, even as they are willing to deny other people's freedom to do things of which they disapprove.

Libertarians, by contrast, prefer to judge issues on the libertarian - authoritarian spectrum. Thus they support people's freedom to do whatever they please, including those things of which they (libertarians) may disapprove, as long as they harm no one else by so doing, and as long as they accept full responsibility for their actions.

Finally, Bill signs off with the words "Bill 'loves freedom but not an anarchist' G*". To which I say, me too, Bill.

Cheers, Ron,
Proud member of the Party of Principle.