[free-sklyarov] Libertarian party is not our friends, they are no better then the democrats and republicans.

[Ethan Straffin]

> After spending the last two months on an a local "official" libertarian
> party mailing list, I've come to the conclusion that the Libertarian party
> are a bunch of idiots.  They had no interest in DMCA issues, and Harry
> Browne they're pick for president has just put the nail in the coffin of my
> beliefs.  First off we don't know who actually committed this "act of war"
> on the united states, until we know this for fact, I think Mr. Browns
> article was embarrassing, and just plain moronic.  What Mr. Browne is
> basically saying is we deserved to have innocent Men, Women, and Children
> killed, even though again we don't know for sure who committed this atrocity
> for a fact.  We can conjecture, but until we know for a fact this article
> wasn't constructive.

And when we do know for sure, might it then become constructive?  My
understanding is that the intelligence community has narrowed down the
list of suspects to three, all of whom have ample reason to hate the U.S.  
under the terms suggested by Browne.  (And before you shoot the messenger
again, I'm not speaking of right or wrong here, but of basic human
nature.)

Browne is not saying that we deserved to have innocent men, women, and
children killed.  He is saying that there are a lot of other parties out
there that didn't deserve it either, and that the inevitable bloodshed
still to come will very likely fuel a cycle of violence that will continue
to hit us where we live.  It may be viewed as a dispassionate, even cold
analysis in a time when passion and moral outrage are much easier to come
by, but I challenge anyone to demonstrate that it is not a more realistic
view of the way things really work than that toward which we're being
shoved by endless speeches about how our national resolve is being tested.  
Not our compassion, not our wisdom, not our love of freedom, mind you, but
our resolve.  You're free to infer the former from the latter if you like, 
but in my experience, a politician is most likely to speak of resolve just 
before he signs a bill authorizing a very large military operation that 
winds up killing a lot of innocent people.

In the meantime, I want to know why the U.S. under the Bush administration
is Afghanistan's number-one sponsor, to the tune of $43 million -- a
figure we're not hearing much about on CNN, oddly enough.  Oh, that's
right: because they're going along with our drug policy by promising to
shoot farmers caught growing opium.  If it does turn out to be bin Laden,
it will certainly look to a number of observers as though we were
complicit in our victimization to a frightening degree.  If not, it still
doesn't explain how we have justified supporting one of the world's most
brutal regimes in the name of our own failed attempts at social
engineering.

> I saw allot of in fighting on the libertarian list,
> and I was caution us to distance ourselves from them.

I'm sure some think that it is better to wait to raise these issues until
heads and hearts are cooler, while others would prefer to strike while the
iron is hot.  I honestly don't know which is better, but I do think they
need to be raised at some point, or else this will be just the beginning.  
It is impossible for the government of any free society to provide a level
of security that the average American still thinks he has.  Learning to be
a better neighbor may well be our only salvation.

Ethan
--
"If only there were evil people somewhere, insidiously committing evil
deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us
and destroy them.  But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the
heart of every human being.  And who is willing to destroy a piece of
his own heart?"                                -- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn