I have a strong feeling that the Freedom Party exists to solely to keep the discussion of politics from ever veering too far to the left. People like Mr. Metz and Mr. Block are probably paid by people like Conrad Black and other prosperous millionaires and gazillionaires to make sure that no truthfully thought out discussion takes place.

If you hadn't donated any money to the Clay case that's before the courts I would have never taken the time to read about your party. It is commendable that you are behind this cause, but I would not be one to accept money from you.

I highly agree that privacy of the individual is very important, but the arguments put forth by these two people make me shudder. Taken at face value, the suggestions and the context of the arguments lead me to believe that the FP is racist, sexist, and anthropocentric to the extent that all other forms of life and our causal relationship is nothing but a farce. If this is the kind of "freedom" you're talking about, I have no doubt that it would end up being a totalitarian state.

Some of what you say makes me think of the "good ole" days like the 1860's or so, when those with the gun and the ruthlessness could go to any homesteader and forcibly remove them from their land. Hey, I'm all for a little privacy, but the playing scales are hardly balanced in my best interest. There is no way that the present economic market could go from what it is now to what you people envision without the playing field being totally skewed towards those that are already in power. And by that I don't mean the "G". Big business already runs the "G" far too much as it is.

You have to be joking when you say that through private property everyone is going to become responsible; if there wasn't any "G" around to dampen the economic interests of the big companies, they'd be raping the earth and its inhabitants even faster than they are now! This is probably not even going to be read by you so I'll stop now. It was worth a try.

- Marc Bowes, mbowes@awinc.com, June, 1997

Thanks for taking the time to write us, but we sure would appreciate it if you could let us know what we've said that led you to your conclusions. Certainly, based on what you've written above, your conclusions appear totally based on assumptions, even to the point of your assumption that we 'probably' won't even read your mail. While we do not always have the time to respond to all the mail we receive, rest assured that we do read all our mail, and that many of our letters find their way to a permanent position on our website, as will yours.

Your suggestion that Dr. Block and Mr. Metz are in some way paid by 'people like Conrad Black' is certainly fanciful, and we at Fp would certainly welcome such funding. Unfortunately, it just isn't so. It is a fact that the largest recipients of corporate political contributions are the Liberal and Conservative parties, while the NDP is the main recipient of big union contributions. Freedom Party is totally funded through the voluntary contributions of individuals, and we are unaware of any who claim access to vast amounts of wealth. Nor would it matter, since contributions to political parties are severely limited to minuscule amounts. Financial records of all political parties are also open to public scrutiny, though in light of the contribution restrictions, we would prefer to see that contributors to political parties retain their privacy.

Your statement that Freedom Party exists 'solely to keep the discussion of politics from ever veering too far to the left' and to prevent any 'truthfully thought out discussion' is way off mark. Strictly speaking, Freedom Party is neither a 'left' nor 'right' wing party, since we believe in both economic (unlike you) and personal (like you) freedom. What we find puzzling is why a person like yourself, who sees the value of personal freedom, seems to have a problem with the concept of economic freedom. Perhaps you'd like to let us know.

If you really believe our discussions are not 'truthfully thought out', then on what grounds would you explain our support of hemp activist Chris Clay?

You have stated that the arguments put forth by Dr. Block and Mr. Metz make you 'shudder'. What arguments? We'd certainly appreciate an opportunity to allay your fears, but without any specifics, how can we? Most importantly, what possible arguments put forth by us would lead you to conclude that Fp is 'racist, sexist, and anthropocentric'?

We believe that all individuals are equal before and under the law, and we repeat this message constantly. Those interested in a 'truthfully thought out discussion' bear the obligation to let us know what specifics are being referred to.

Your comments are symptomatic of many criticisms levied against the philosophy of freedom: Labeling, evasion of specifics, and a misrepresentation of the opposition are three clear signs of an argument that has no interest in truthfully thought out discussion.

A prime directive behind Freedom Party's philosophy is that no individual, group, or government has any right to INITIATE force against any other individual, group, or government. To suggest that such a philosophy of individual freedom could possibly lead to totalitarianism would be a contradiction in terms. Again, if we've said or printed anything that contradicts this aspect of our philosophy, please let us know.

Your reference to criminals forcing people from their land seems to indicate that you value the institution of private property. However, you seem to suggest that private property means that there wouldn't be any government. Quite the contrary.

Protecting property rights is one of the prime legitimate functions of government. It is the failure of government to do so that has led to unnecessary pollution and environmental problems. It is no coincidence that environmental problems are worst in those countries where the government owns and runs everything.

If you would provide us with evidence of your conclusions about Mr. Metz, Dr. Block, and/or Freedom Party, we'd sure appreciate hearing from you! Then we could address your concerns more directly. [rm]