Dear Ernie:

This is the other side of the coin that our reading public is entitled to know after reading what was published on June 9, 2011:

I have no quarrel with spiteful Nihilists criticizing the problems of living in a State that regulates and maintains peace and order, which cannot be worse than the problems of living under Statelessness, anarchy and chaos espoused by anti-State advocate Butler Shaffer and his likes. It is their upside down REASONING that worries me.

I have a dissertation in the academe that focused on this alarming philosophy of radical Anarchism – this concern over this garden of fluffy reasoning cultivated by mutinous Libertarians that stage a call to arms in the name of liberty and freedom. I am sure the academic paper that I am referring to, will not see print here because although I am a Libertarian of Reason perhaps like you are, it is anti-Libertarianism nevertheless.

My father once told me when I was young to always remember that the river cannot flow upstream, that’s why my view on this libertarian rage of Stateless Anarchists will not see print here at FP.com -- just to whet the imagination of our readers to unable them to understand my meaning, and for the public to know where I stand on those issues of liberty and freedom as a Libertarian of Reason.

My antithesis to an armed R3volution to wipe out the State which philosophical mutineers like Butler Shaffer are -- in their mind -- locked up in an intense struggle for liberation in the name of liberty and freedom, is quite simple. The State is you and me. Do you have to be afraid of you …or do I have to fear me? It requires a laborious philosophical twisting to treat the State as an entity totally distinct and separate from you and I. This reasoning that this hated State is not you and me and therefore we should pull the trigger to kill it, renders the use of Logic disturbingly questionable because it results in a myopic visualization of what statehood is all about, if not a total failure in understanding the reason why the State, let alone the Government, exists.

We live in a Representative Democracy. The State is just a name political scientists invented to ID you and me. If we run the State through you and me in the manner we do not like, that might as well be you and I running or governing you and me the way we do not like. That’s why it is a distorted reckoning if not a faulty reasoning to say that because of the State’s "intrusiveness" in regulating and maintaining peace and order in the disorderly environment we live in, you have to fear the State, which is another way of saying that you have to fear you, and I have to fear me, which is unwittingly ridiculous.

Who should control the uncontrollable, leash the unleashable, tame the untamable wild, restraint and/or catch criminals and wrongdoers and prevent crimes and wrongdoing and the like, but the State, which is no other than you and me acting in an organized fashion, with power that needs to be greater than the forces of evil within us and among us. But it is so wrong if not at least contradictory to say that the State is evil because we are righteous in our rebellion, and that the evil State is neither you nor me which should be eliminated. We can have every right to air our grievances, and all the reasons to revolt at the drop of the hat, but it does not necessarily mean that when we become the State or the Government that we are, we have no right to exist. It is discordant to eliminate you by you, or do away with me by me. That self-immolation thinking is not only clandestinely suspicious in appearance but also specious in its hidden destructive contradiction.

To prove my point of this philosophical inconsistency, just look up at the title of this anti-State anarchism that author Butler Shaffer had made up. Even the enforcement of the Seat-Belt Laws is mischaracterized as "essential to the State" in order to restraint our liberty and freedom. Such distortion is not only appalling but also very disquieting, to say the least.

Among others cited by Shaffer, Seat-Belt Laws are enforced not for the grandeur, whims and caprices to maintain the decadent opulence and triumph of the State over the individual, which Anarchists like this author wrongly treat the State as a distinct and separate invasive entity, and worse pictured as a sadistic offender of human rights … these laws are enforced down the road for the safety of motorists and those inside the running vehicle they are driving, especially for the protection of babies and children traveling along with their parents. These Seat-Belt Laws were never intended to rob citizens driving their car of their Fourth Amendment Rights as Shaffer postulates. It is totally hilarious to pit the Fourth Amendment against the safety of motorists with the seat-belt on when driving a car.

Except for their poor if not twisted reasoning, I have no quarrel with anyone’s right to advocate the philosophy of Anarchism. Anarchists may choose to remain in the limbo of anti-statism the rest of their lives for all I care.

And believe me, it cannot be doubted that they too are very artful and crafty philosophers of our time. Although the majority of Americans in this Democracy may not always be right, the number of this R3volutionary tribe has never been greater than just the count of a person’s normal fingers. At the same time it cannot also be disputed that they are an exceptional breed of political animals in our midst living in all the fifty States of the United States of America who feel they are always at the mercy of the Federal and State Governments.

As against the great majority of us several millions of Americans living in this great country of ours, being a very small minority does not mean that they cannot be dismally incorrect or terribly wrong either.

In his complaint entitled "How Perverted Have We Become" [an assault in print against the State], author Shaffer vehemently protested the killing of Osama bin Laden. He wanted bin Laden captured alive and brought to trial here in the United States where according to him this head of Al Qaeda terrorists would have the opportunity to declare his innocence until proven guilty.

Anarchist Shaffer was probably thinking of Saddam Hussein who was brought to trial before the Dictator was hanged. The invasion of Saddam’s sacred home where he was captured by American soldiers – a rat-hole in the ground where he was hiding – would have been a defense under the Fourth Amendment had the trial been conducted here in the United States, like what Shaffer probably imagined Osama bin Laden has every right to be entitled to.

That’s a lot of crap that needs more space for me to demonstrate how obtuse and imperceptive an overrated philosophical anarchist can be. Let me just say this: It is a

long way to justice for bin Laden who was too fast in making a sweeping decision to murder thousands of innocent Americans and to launch a surprise attack and destroy our homeland in just a wink of an eye.

In a protracted trial had bin Laden was captured alive, it is obvious that the damning interest of Anarchists like Shaffer is only to wound further this already wounded nation using -- in the name of liberty and freedom -- the call to arms against the State they perceived as an intruder to the individual’s sovereign right to be left alone, an aggressor that is totally mean and evil that needs to be booted out.

It would shock the nation more than the news of bin Laden’s death which stunned and dazed every American, when in the trial of this Public Enemy No. 1 Anarchists would invoke in bin Laden’s defense the Fourth Amendment Rights for the invasion of his home without a warrant where he was shot dead, no matter how retarded that would also be in the mind of the American public.

That for Anarchists to instigate a r3volutionary action -- after orchestrating an anti-State outrage and spreading chaos across the land over the "innocence" of bin Laden which is their goal – it will come out as today’s journalists’ Understatement of the Year 2011.

In the not-too-distant past when, in anarchy and chaos, arm-bearing Nihilists and violent-prone Anarchists stood their ground, the Media always went wild, like sharks in shallow waters engaging each other in a destructive feeding frenzy.

Sincerely,

Bakadude