Previous posts:
In my last post about FEE and J.H. Huebert, I criticized J. Neil Schulman’s critique of Huebert. Neil has sent a long letter in reply, which I have posted here with his permission. I’ll let readers judge Neil’s letter on its own merits, for now, as I have bread to earn, and not much time for a tit-for-tat reply sanitized for public consumption.
A few short comments for now: I am glad to see he makes it clear that I was wrong in suspecting his monarchy comment (see last post) was a jab at Lew Rockwell et al. That’s good, because LewRockwell and Hans Hoppe are the best of libertarians, IMHO. And, for the record, of course I realize Neil is a libertarian; and I have no idea what this “read someone out of the movement” stuff is about. I think one source of the confusion is Neil seems to think being anti-war is the same as pacifism. I am not a pacifist; aggressors deserve to be countered with severe retaliatory and retributive force. One need not be a pacifist in order to oppose the warring actions of our imperialist-aggressive federal government. Apparently, Neil is way more into this “true patriot” “America is the best country” rah rah stuff than I am. ‘Nuff said (for now).
