E-Mail Letters To The Editor - WorldNetDaily

E-Mail Letters To The Editor - WorldNetDaily
Posted by FoM on September 30, 2000 at 21:29:43 PT
WND Fills Media Hole 
Source: WorldNetDaily
It is obvious by a few of your recent polls on WND that your website has a very large Libertarian following. I want to thank you for offering a site that does not blankly repeat a single party line. It is so refreshing to read a page that looks at the Republican Party clearly and criticizes it when warranted and reports fairly on alternatives like the Libertarian Party. 
Carrying Harry Browne's articles, selling his book and including him in you online polls has been wonderful, as I've recently become Libertarian, and it's not easy to read reporting on the Libertarian Party that does not come directly from the Libertarian Party. I'd love to see what mainstream media has to say about the party, but it seems no one is saying much.  JESSICA LANG JONES  Browne Out:   Thank you for printing the Harry Browne commentary "Media Knows Best." "Meet The Press" told him that his arbitrary exclusion from the program's third party debate was "not in the cards." Must be they use tarot cards to determine what candidates are worth showing. Well, I guess my patronage of "Meet The Press" sponsors is no longer "in the cards," either. On Nov. 7, my Browne vote is definitely "in the cards."  ALICE LILLIE Harry Browne For President Knows Best By Harry Browne Pinning Ann Coulter:   Ann Coulter: I came across your article, "Don't Do Drug Legalization" via a link on WorldNetDaily. You demonstrate the usual lofty contempt for other people typical of all ideologues whether of the "left" or the "right": as God's chosen handmaiden, you are certain beyond question that you know what's best for other people, their own feelings, wishes, and free-will be damned -- and so, like "well-meaning" tyrants of all ages and political persuasions, you feel no reluctance to use force to ensure that other people will live as you think they ought to live. "... you have to admit that someone who lies in formulating an argument is not to be trusted." The same, it seems to me, must hold for someone who proposes an argument obviously based on personal prejudice rather than reason. I also find distasteful the behavior of many other people, including drug-users of all types; but, most of all, I abhor busybodies who haven't the intellectual or moral maturity to conduct their relationships on an adult basis of mutual respect. The proper use of the intellect is to reason, not merely to rationalize one's own prejudices. You disapprove of the behavior of some other people (your own, I assume, must be 200 percent above any possible reproach), so you use your intellectual ability to marshal a bunch of half-baked "arguments" in favor of your "right" to control their lives. There can be no "right" which is not universal -- i.e., which is not held equally by all. Thus, if you have a right to control my life, I must also have a right to control yours -- for instance, to tell you what you may or may not eat, drink, or breathe. Clearly, a social order founded on such a concept must collapse in chaos, or at least mob rule; for the moment, your mob (the alcohol-nicotine-caffeine-hamburger addicts) is larger and stronger than the group whose behavior you want to "correct," but that may not always be so. When the tables are turned, how will you like having your free will subjected to others' whims and prejudices? It is ironic to find such sentiments as yours published in a journal named "Jewish World Review" -- considering what Jewish people have undergone in this century directly as a result of this kind of thinking: that the majority has a "right" to control the lives of a minority, even to the extent of putting them out of their misery en masse as an act of "kindness." ("Who in his right mind would want to be a Jew? We're only doing them a favor.") Another way of putting this principle is known as the Golden Rule; in fact, my favorite formulation thereof comes from the first century Rabbi Hillel of Cairo, who, when asked by a Roman soldier if he could expound the Law while standing on one foot, raised his foot and said, "Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself: that is the whole of the Law, the rest is merely commentary." (I apologize if I do not have this story exactly right; this is how I've heard it.) It really is that simple. The one statement in your diatribe which begins to approach rationality is: "So it's not really quite accurate to say drugs hurt no one but the user, at least until we've repealed the welfare state." Exactly. So let's repeal the welfare state. That is a cause wherein all honest, responsible people can join. A free, just society can only be a society in which all persons who claim the status (and rights) of adults bear full responsibility for all the consequences of their own actions, whether those consequences are borne by others or by themselves. I, for one, resent the fact that resources are extorted from me by force to be used to take care of people who've brought suffering on themselves by their free-will choice to eat the garbage that passes for "food" today in American culture. I do not argue with their choice to eat what they wish; but I am not responsible for the results. As regards what drugs (or "foods") you would prefer to see your "bus driver or investment banker" consume: in a free society, you are free not to patronize those whose behavior you find reprehensible. It's that simple. If you can't live with that, then what you want is slavery, and the welfare state is your true home. By the way, I don't use any of the drugs (or "foods") mentioned in your article. (When I did, questions of legality had no bearing on my decision, since I knew I was not harming anyone else.) Naturally, I'd rather no one else did either. But others' behavior is none of my business (unless it actually impacts me, and not by some specious argument based on welfare-state "collective responsibility," which can be used by anyone to justify anything) and I realize that I must be ruled by whatever law I propose to rule others, so I do my best to mind my own business. I'd suggest you consider doing the same. It'll be a relief, I promise you, not having to be Dictator of the World anymore. On the other hand, I am not in favor of "legalizing" anything, which still involves State control of people's behavior. The proper term is "decriminalize," as in, for instance, "decriminalizing" worship according to the Jewish rite (which, as you must know, has been declared illegal in many times and places). The State has no business interfering in anyone's behavior except in cases of actual aggression. I don't know where this quote comes from, but it covers the ground: "If you want to be free, you must defend others' freedom as well -- including those whose responsible exercise of their own freedom you may find distasteful."  ANDREW MAIN Don't Do Drug Legalization By Ann Coulter Nazing-Out Drugs in America:   This letter is in regard to Len's response to Joe Miller's column on Tom Campbell. Len's comments are a prime example of the truism the fascism and ignorance are inextricably entwined. He betrays gaping flaws in logic and fundamental gaps in knowledge from his first sentence. Perhaps you should hire a fact checker before you publish the wild assertions of a rabid, yet under-informed, fanatic. "Drugs" do not, plain and simple, "enter and become part of the cell nucleus." Cocaine does not "dissolve portions of the brain" (I'd like to point out that cocaine is a Schedule II drug; it is legal for use in the USA under limited conditions such as facial surgery, just like morphine and amphetamine). His feeble attempt to cite "science magazines back in the mid '80s" is laughable; perhaps he could provide an actual specific reference? He claims that moderate use of alcohol and tobacco are not lethal; on this we can agree. So, one is forced to ask, what about moderate use of other drugs? Applying his very logic to alcohol, all who sip a glass of wine with dinner would instantly be transformed into drooling, comatose, skid-row alcoholics. His assertion that all dealers "know for certain" that they are killing their clientele is demonstrably incorrect; it is a simple fact that most drug users do not die. Does every bartender "know for certain" that his patrons will die in a DUI-caused car wreck? I think most people would laugh at such an outlandish claim, and rightly so. Finally, his proposal to immediately execute drug dealers on conviction marks him as a better candidate for banana-republic dictator than American citizen. I politely suggest that Len spend some time reading the U.S. Constitution, a simple and eloquent document that I am forced to conclude he has never laid eyes on. A little basic biology, pharmacology, and basic jurisprudence might be good follow-ups.  BO LAWLER  Doing OK on Dope Straight Dope: Dispatches From the Drug War Anti-Reefer Madness:   Cannabis has no lethal dose and its pharmacological effects have never caused a single death in over 5,000 years of recorded history. The (unseen) driving force against medical (or unrestricted adult) legalization of cannabis is the fact that cannabis can't be patented. This precludes the need for big business to be involved and that fact makes cannabis commercially unattractive, pharmaceutically speaking. It seems that if it can't be profited from successfully, the government can't justify legalization even for the sick and dying. Unfortunately, a change in current policy (prohibition) would necessitate that the alternative (legalization) reap more profits (seen and unseen) than our present policy does. Maybe the corrupt politicians and media are required to adhere to the party line of prohibition because law enforcement, customs, the prison and military industrial complex, the drug testing industry, the INS, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the politicians themselves et al can't live without the budget justification, not to mention the invisible profits, bribery, corruption and forfeiture benefits that prohibition affords them. The drug war also promotes, justifies and perpetuates racist enforcement policies and is diminishing many freedoms and liberties that are supposed to be inalienable according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  MYRON VON HOLLINGSWORTH Sharpening 'Liberty's Teeth'   In response to e-mailer Len, who wants to execute drug dealers who sell drugs to adults, I assume that Len only wants to execute unlicensed drug dealers and does not want to exterminate all doctors, pharmacists and licensed producers. In other words, he wants to execute people if their papers are not in order. I have a better idea. Restore the Second Amendment so individuals can protect themselves from these drug fighters and all other violent lunatics. This simple measure will end the war on drug users and all the other wars against freedom. It is a good example of what George Washington meant when he referred to an armed population as "liberty's teeth." Regarding Len's desire to protect adults from doing business with whomever they choose, I want to remind this well-meaning, violent authoritarian that the adult population of this planet are not his children and they do not want or need his protection.  RICH ERAMIAN   Doing OK on Dope Drug Dealer Hogwash:   Len has it wrong. Nonviolent drug dealers are not like rabid dogs biting our children. Rabid dogs violently harm people without asking permission. Drug dealers sell their wares with the full knowledge and consent of the drug user. It is the drug user who is responsible for taking care of his own body. Drug dealers are no more responsible for drug users than tobacco companies are responsible for smokers. No more than gun manufacturers are responsible for gun crime. To assert otherwise is blatant socialist hogwash.  TIM K.   Doing OK on Dope Stoned, Fat 'n' Happy   This to the guy who is attempting to come up the back door with that "legalize marijuana" crap. "They" didn't change the constitution "while you were sleeping" -- you were just so stoned you haven't been aware of what's been happening for at least the last 20 years. Unfortunately, it's a classic case of the young being too wasted to notice and the elderly being too selfish to care that "they" are shredding our Constitution to shreds. Come out of your stupor and get busy. It may already be too late.  DAVID PEEBLES Click to read all of E-Mail Letters To The Editor from WND: Source: WorldNetDaily (US Web)Web Posted: September 30, 2000Copyright: 2000,, Inc.Contact: letters worldnetdaily.comAddress: PO Box 409, Cave Junction, OR 97523-0409Fax: (541) 597-1700Website: Articles - Joel Miller
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Post Comment

Name: Optional Password: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: