Reader Comments

Editor: I've just read "The Problem of Pure Libertarianism" by Mr. Edward Feser. It is excellent, extremely well argued and without any logical mistake, at least I have found none. I would only add that even though both Lockean, Hayekian, Aristotelian conservative libertarianism on the one hand and contractarian, utilitarian, "economist" anti-conservative libertarianism on the other hand can exist as theoretical concepts in theory, however, in the real life of existing political societies, the former can exist in the long term perspective, but the latter cannot, because it is self-defeating. Without voluntary willingness on the part of the people to make sacrifices for moral ends, a free society cannot survive. I would say that Feser's essay is comparable in its quality to both Frank Meyer's "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism" and Stanton Evans' "A Conservative Case for Freedom". Thank you for re-publishing it. Sincerely, Roman Joch

Editor: "The Problem with Pure Libertarianism" by Edward Feser is a detailed history of the philosophical roots of libertarianism. I would call the final analysis a slight bit shallow, however, as I would describe my own libertarianism as Darwinian, which aligns me with the least restrictive "contractualist" side of the divide Feser articulates. I would settle for what Michael Badnarik has referred to as the "Platinum Rule": Don't do to others what you would not have them do to you. Bob Armstrong

Editor: Concerning, "Editing Out Hollywood," I am a grandmother of 7 (5 boys and 2 girls). About a year ago I stopped the filth from ever coming into my home once and for all. I discontinued cable and now I only have the programs offered by Angel Network (some 35-40 Christian TV and Radio stations). I don't even have the local stations on my TV. Some would say that that is a little drastic. But, is that too much of a sacrifice for our young and innocent children? I should hope not! I have also a list of movie stars and movie makers that I will not watch any of their movies. I am a grown mature lady. I know how to stop the filth from coming into my house and I take action. What is wrong with all the other responsible mature adults out there? Don't they want to protect their children or grandchildren? Hollywood would definitely stand up and listen to a Nation full of people who won't pay for ticket or cable or satellite service. Get some back bone out there people. If you are truly Christian act like it in your homes and clean it up (TV) by replacing it with something more worthy. Thanks, Suzanne, Manchester, TN

Editor: I just joined the ACU. As a longtime conservative, and Republican, and disappointed with the present Bush administration, I was moved by your statement of principles. Those very same principles have animated both my personal and professional lives. Therefore, it was with some disappointment that I noticed your support for the tort reform movement and your broad and reckless defamation of my profession. Whether you know it or not, there are quite a few conservative just like me in the profession. You do us all a disservice with your partisan, polemic, and decidedly unconservative critique. If you would be so kind, please direct me to the evidence and the arguments that underlie your support of tort reform. The best and most concise critique I have yet heard regarding tort reform is this: imagine taking David's sling and giving it to Goliath. If you, like me, battled the corporate interests everyday in the court rooms of this great land, you would better understand that the jury system is the truest mechanism for "justice" yet conceived by man. Tort reform is not conservative at all. It is socialized elitism. The corporate elites cannot buy a jury the way that they buy our representatives and our regulators. For instance, the corporate elites cannot hire a juror into a lobbying position, neither can they hire a juror's son, daughter, brother, sister, etc. In front of a jury, the corporate elites' wealth means nothing. Each case rises and falls on the strength of the evidence and the advocacy.--the truest form of meritocracy. In other words, pure conservatism. What corporate elites cannot influence through greed, they seek to limit through legislation. Conservatives should be against this meddling with our traditionall checks and balances and market-based regulation. Bush has been particularly deceitful on this subject. Please direct me to a non-polemic, objective, and conservative critique. Yours very truly, True conservative, William C. Bensley, Esquire, Howard, Brenner & Nass, P.C.
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Editor: I have just read the most outrageous analyses of President Bush's proposals. To make it worse part of the analysis came from Congressional Budget Office. No wonder we have such budget problems. The analysis says that the tax cuts will "cost" $1 trillion over 10 years. Why not calculate the decreases in government revenues that occurred as a result of every tax cut in written history?

Then they point out that allowing my children and grand children to invest some of their own money in their own accounts will cost the government $2 trillion over a decade. That is not the real problem. The bottom line problems is that the government has stolen trillions of dollars from the Social Security fund and will have to make it up pretty soon. As soon as the federal government stops stealing SS funds for studying the sex life of beetles and putting up personal glorification plaques on government buildings and bridges the problems will begin to disappear. Somebody please come clean and tell it straight. John Haumersen, Racine, WI

Editor: We the people of the U.S.A. are jellyfish wimps compared to our forefathers who thankfully acknowledged God & Divine guidance all through our history, which cost them dearly. What do the ACLU judges offer in return to America after removing the moral backbone of freedom from our public places with their liberal court decisions? A very concerned citizen remembering our past heritage, Don Marsh, Long Beach, CA.

Email the Editor