Letters

From the February 1999 issue

(Page 2 of 4)

I cannot see how a war between secular and theocratic libertarians can help secular libertarians either. First, such a war will paint libertarians as people given to factions. Second, it will tend to associate libertarianism with atheism. Both of these perceptions will diminish the plausibility of libertarianism in the nation at large.

To encourage infighting between secular and theocratic libertarians will only delay our liberation from an increasingly intrusive secularistic state. Although we cannot be real allies, due to our fundamental differences, there is no good reason not to remain as co-belligerents in the struggle to persuade America to seek freedom.

William W. Gould
Treasurer
National Reform Association
Pittsburgh, PA

In "Invitation to a Stoning," is the Gary North mentioned the same Gary North who is outspoken on Y2K social disorder?

If you read his Webstuff on Y2K, you would see a clearer claim to "Christian libertarianism." Some is summarized on www.y2kchaos.com, with links from there to Gary North's pages.

Still, if he is a Christian libertarian, he's only libertarian enough, so to speak, to ensure equal rights for his brand of Christianity. That is missing the point of liberty.

Brian C Rachocki
Cazenovia, NY

Walter Olson replies: William Gould and Andrew Sandlin don't deny that Recons favor the execution of blasphemers, parent cursers, apostate Christians, adulterers, occultists, and practicing gays (this last a nod to Mr. Gould's complaint that my terminology was imprecise). Mr. Sandlin dodgingly asserts that these measures would be put into effect only after America reaches covenant status, the Rushdoony equivalent of "after the revolution." Are Reconstructionists working to bring America into covenant status? Yes.

I appreciate Mr. Gould's candor in frankly avowing his side "theocratic" and noting that "we cannot be real allies, due to our fundamental differences." I winced, however, when he observed that some of his co-thinkers have decried the drug war; before long, at this rate, the cause of drug legalization might stop being respectable. As for Mr. Sandlin's more personal reflections, I am still trying to follow his metaphor (it seems the outline of a chasm is protruding conspicuously through a facade--is this an "innie" or an "outie"?) but will be glad if the only violence he accomplishes is against the English language.

Thanks to Jim Cheaney for his comments, and to Brian Rachocki: Yes, the Reconstructionist Gary North is the same one who's involved in Y2K alarmism.

Transplanting Policy

Your article on organ transplant policy ("Organ Grinders," November) did a good job of framing most of the issues in the debate. There were a few details that you left out.

First, the purpose of the sickest-first policy is to get organs to people who need transplants before they get to the critical stage of their disease. Their bodies should then be healthier and better able to recover.

Second, with this new program there would be more of the large transplant centers at the expense of the smaller transplant centers. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. If you were getting an organ transplant, wouldn't you rather have a team that does it a few times a month rather than a few times a year?

Thirdly, the University of Pittsburgh does a lot of liver transplants for patients outside of the area because it is a liver specialty center. The Pittsburgh center takes on more of the difficult cases, and people with more complicated cases come from all over the country for its expertise. As other medical centers learn how to do liver transplants, the patients who might have otherwise traveled to Pittsburgh can be served by other centers that did not exist in 1990.