...The times have changed, be careful. You are attacking the most powerful man on the face of the earth. he may not be able to get some nookie on the side without getting caught, but he can have you killed at the slightest provocation. At the moment it is not politically expedient for him to do so, but imagine he was going down anyway. Might he not say, I'll get that sob that attacked me. At the lift of a finger the CIA could turn you inside out. Next, lose the term anarchist. I know I used it, but it is a bad term today. Robert Lefavere prefered the term autarchist (self-rule) He said it was too hard to have to explain that anarchist did not really mean what people thought it did. Better to have a new term. No one can take great exception to the term radical Libertarian ( I hope) and that states your position well....
Rod Island
Reply to my friend and fellow radical libertarian, Rod Island.
Boy, are you paranoid. I didn't say anything particularly bad about Clinton. If Clinton read what I wrote, he'd probably put me in the friends' column when he considered what other people are saying about him. Someone sent me the Arkancide pamphlett, the one that accuses the Clintons of being involved in a lot of murders I don't believe much of it; but it's interesting, sort of like one of those flying saucer book. People can make a case for anything.
Is Clinton the most powerful man on the face of the Earth? Yes, he could have me killed and get away with it. But who couldn't? It's not as though police protection actually worked. What makes Clinton so powerful is his ability to kill foreigners without facing any danger. The idea that the Clintons are involved in American murders is too far-fetched. Besides, my essay didn't even concentrate on Clinton. I just used the public's reaction to his troubles to make one of my points: Government is the God of this age.
You seem to think people are paying attention to what we are saying. Don't you think that's a little grandiose? To virtually everyone, we are not a species of cranks, but a subspecies of cranks. I know that there is a substantial number of Libertarians who are sympathetic to our position; but, in the greater world, there number of Libertarians is insignificant. We still have free speech in this country, as long as no one listens to us; and no one does.
The governement is interested in violent people, and you know that we are as harmless as doves, at least I am. It's funny about violent radicals, such as the KKK, IRA, black militant groups, PLO, etc. They are not really dangerous to the state's existence but they can only exist because of a dissatisfied population that takes a private pleasure in their antics. That dissatisfied population is what ultimately concerns to government.
You mention that LeFevre used the word autarchy because he had to take so much time explaining anarchy. Does everyone know what autarchy means? No, I'm pretty much stuck with the term anarchy. In a world where cross-dressing Nazi podiatrists are common TV fare, a word with a little shock value is useful; and besides, anarchist describes what I believe. I can't help it if a bunch of utopian leftist have taken over the word. No one listen to them either. The truth is that virtually no one can understand what we are saying. If a cat could speak perfect English, we wouldn't understand a word it was saying.
I read that preachers were always fulminating against atheism in the the 1500s but the writer could find no evidence that anyone was actually an atheist. Most of the people who call themselves anarchists today are simply utopianist who think that the present government is standing in the way of their ideal society. We live in totalitarianism. People view government inaction as another form of government action. They equate the absence of government with some gigantic new government program. That's the only way they can see matters. They don't understand a word we're saying. Only those who already know what we're saying understand us. They just need someone to say it out loud. Other people take our arguments and use them to promote their own vision of government. The Libertarians have been handing their ideas over to the Republicans for years; but the Republicans show no tendency to accept the fundamental principles of the Libertarians.
Why should I call myself a libertarian when libertarians simply have a slightly more sensible Utopia? I'm not a utopianist; I'm a leave people alone-ist Maybe I should call myself a human ecologist. Do you think that would be a good idea?