Thank you.

Love,

The State

By the way, my understanding is that her Foreign Policy plank will be far more than just opposition to the war(s), but will emphasize the twin objectives of free trade and military non-intervention, which she’ll undoubtedly describe as using win-win strategies instead of lose-lose ones.

I highly doubt she will give any focus to privatising police in her campaign. It’s not a major issue, unlike healthcare, war, and the economy: the three issues her campaign will focus on. Harry Browne focused on taxes, social security, and the war on drugs: three issues. Ron Paul focused on inflation and the war: two issues. Candidates are usually best who focus their campaigns on certain areas. It’s never good to focus too broadly.

It’s not “sugar-coating” to not bring up privatisation of police and courts, it’s simply common sense not to bother bringing up such reforms that we all know wouldn’t get pushed through Congress even if Ruwart were elected president. She should, and will, focus on those reforms most needed right now and most likely to get people interested in the broader libertarian movement (which includes minarchists, anarchists, constitutionalists, &c.), like free-market healthcare and peace.

Yours,
Alex Peak

www.ruwarchy.com

Yes, Mary Ruwart is a “sweet human being”, especially by LP activist standards. And she has done a stand-up job doing her homework in an attempt to reconcile consequentialist and ZAP based libertarian schools.

But there is still an element of spin—spin which people can see through quickly enough no matter how sugar-coated the words.

Take the privatized police force example cited in her book. She cites an example of privatized police doing a better job than government hired police. An example does not proof make. I have read lefty treatises citing examples of government owned utilities doing a better job than privately owned utilities. Once again, this is not proof.

For the utility example, one must stack up AT&T, MCI, etc. against the wide range of nationalized phone services in other first world countries. Methinks private (regulated) utilities win this one.

For police and armies, you need to compare the police and militaries of democratically elected governments with a wider sample of private counter examples: campus police, Pinkertons, Vikings, William the Conqueror, slave traders, pirates, militias, death squads, Blackwater, mafias, yakuzai, and your local mall cops. The winner of this comparison is rather unclear to me.

It just seems a bit patriarchal that the presidential candidate has to be a male. But, yes, I certainly understand your desire to win.

Yours,
Alex Peak

A lot of people avoid the term “anarchist” because it implies support for things that the person might not actually want. At worst, people think of black-cape wearing, bomb-throwing houligans when they hear the term. Dr. Ruwart, of course, is not a bomb-thrower, a nihilist, or a nut; but rather a sweet human being who wants people to be secure in their rights. Moreover, she can appeal to persons from all corners of the political spectrum with her compassionate and pragmatic arguments for Liberty, including the moderates and the radicals.

Ms. Ruwart would be the first to tell you that you do not have to agree with her on everything to be a libertarian. Just look, for example, how she handles the question of abortion. Although she personally is pro-choice, she explains that one can be a pro-life libertarian, and that there are principled libetarian arguments on both sides of that fence.

She handles the communication of libertarian ideas delicately, aiming not so much to bash opponents as to win over hearts and minds. Read her articles, listen to her speeches—you will be impressed.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

P.S. I also take issue with your implication that we’re on the right.

LOL, Roscoe.

Carl, it would seem to be true.

Ah yes, be an anarchist but don’t tell anyone. Bait and switch, it’s the key to being principled.

“The Libertarian Party, the Leninists of the Right”