One reason dizzy liberals hate and try to suppress principled
    freedom advocates so much is that we individualists often render value
    judgements -- and when the Liberal Mentality hears someone render a
    value judgment WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES, the liberal wants to try to
    pretend that the value judgment is "invalid" because "there are never
    any absolutes" (a statement which, if true, is self-contradictory and
    therefore false).  So, when a rational individualist renders a value
    judgement that a liberal doesn't like, the liberal often tries to attack ALL
    value judgements as invalid rather than dealing with the specific issue
    at hand -- and sometimes even accuses the principled individualist of
    wanting to "legislate morality" .

       For example, if the rational individualist claims that using heroin and
    cocaine can be addictive and is bad for ones health, the liberal relativist
    reacts very defensively and with barely suppressed guilt symptoms,
    stamping his foot in indignation and screeching something like "What
    right do you have to impose your moral judgements on me or other people!
    I have a right to do what I want!"  Notice that the rational individualist
    has in no way used force, either personal or political, to impose his views
    on the "liberal" or anyone else -- nor has he advocated using the force of
    political   legislation to impose his observations about private personal
    behavior or anyone; but, the "liberal" -- almost always intelllectually
    dishonest to the core -- wants to try to get away in portraying those who
    express moral sentiments as somehow threatening to impose their morality
    on others.  What the "liberal" really feels threatened by is not legislation
    but the idea that the morality of human behavior might not be arbitrary and
    relative but is based on absolute standards and rational principles which if
    ignored could affect his life and happiness.   (Of course this same liberal
    sees nothing wrong or hypocritical with HIM using Big Government to impose
    HIS notions of morality on other people -- from compulsory school attendance
    laws, forced bussing of school children, anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative
    Action, compulsory seat belts, FDA restrictions on what vitamins you can
    take, laws against "quack" cancer cures, compulsory helmets for cyclists,
    compulsory Social Security taxes, restrictions on use of ones own land,
    antitrust laws, income taxes, price controls, and many other coercive
    interventions against peoples' freedom to engage in capitalist acts among
    consenting adults.)

             Of course, the irony is that ONLY under freedom -- a system in
    which government is restricted by a policy of Laissez Faire -- are
    (adult) individuals recognized as responsible human beings who are
    free (from coercive interference) to do with their own bodies (and
    properties) whatever they want as long as they do not violate (through
    coercive interference) the same right of other people to do what they
    want with THEIR own bodies and properties. This INCLUDES the
    freedom to do some things the rational individualist himself may
    disapprove of -- such as self-mutilation, using LSD or heroin, putting
    gerbels up ones rectum, eating banana peels, drilling holes in the top of
    ones skull, sniffing glue, watching Jerry Springer or Geraldo Rivera,
    or reading Newsweek magazine.  Immoral and foolish behaviors are no
    less immoral or foolish when they are not prohibited by government.  It
    is not the proper role of government to regulate peoples' personal,
    private behavior or interfere with purely voluntary (market) relations.
    Government should protect peaceful folk from violent crime instead.

           Under the Laissez-Faire Republic which we advocate, people would
      be free to perform immoral follies on up to and including suicide -- as long
      as such actions do not involve the initiation of the use of coercive force
      in violation of the rights of others to their own persons and properties.
      Under freedom, ALL individuals' rights to person and property would be
      recognized, respected, and defended by law, including that of the "liberals"
      as well -- but not JUST the freedom of "liberals" to indulge in their own
      whims.  The law would also protect the freedom of other people to disagree
      with the "liberals" and even the freedom of speech and of press to express
      disapproval of  the immoral personal behaviors or foolish practices that are
      condoned and championed by the "liberals" and other moral relativists.  It is
      this freedom -- the freedom to disagree with and disapprove of their pet
      vices and social programs -- that enrages "liberals" so much -- and why the
      "liberal"-left has sought to suppress any and all dissent and disagreements
      with its agenda by using its fascistic program of "political correctness" on
      college campuses and in the kept media.  Their goal is to stamp out all
      publicly expressed views contrary to their own -- and especially those that
      reject epistemological and moral relativism in favor of rational standards
      and absolute principles and values.

          The implicit reason liberal relativists want to try to pretend that
    "there are no absolutes" or that morality is "relative" is that they
    want to reject any and all PRINCIPLES as such -- not just political
    legislation imposed by the power of the state, but also any NON-
    IMPOSED rules dealing with good conduct and bad habits to avoid.
    They  want to be able to flaunt their vices & follies publicly while
    imposing a gag on anyone who would dare call their behavior "immoral"
    or foolish or imply that there could be any rational, absolute standards
    for behavior beyond their own personal whims or momentary feelings.
    They want the "luxury" of pretending that any and all chosen behavior
    has no consequences, no relevance one way or another to human life
    and morality. They want to replace rational principle with their own
    arbitrary whims. Of course, this is a recipe for disaster, both in the life
    of an individual and in the course of a nation.

           The advance of human progress and civilization has been the result
    of the discovery, recognition, and implementation of sound principles
    and the abandonment of the arbitrariness of whim and the irrationality of
    superstition.   By their vehement rejection of rational principles and absolute
    standards, today's left-wingers and "liberals" have abandoned progress and
    civilization  and true science in favor of their own mystic religious cult, no longer
    pretending (as did Marx) that their socialism is "scientific" or even
    rational.

            Beyond that, it must be kept in mind that relativism in the
    areas of truth and morals necessarily leads to absolute tyranny in
    politics.  If reality is seen as subjective and relative, that is, if
    reason is abandoned, then reality can no longer serve as an
    independent frame of reference on the basis of which disputes
    may be resolved, so that the only other way disputes can be dealt
    with is by brute force -- might makes right.  Thus, the relativist
    premises of modern "liberalism" lead inevitably to more conflict
    in society and eventually to some form of statist tyranny.

          Force -- especially the legal force of political government --
    must never be allowed to be wielded by subjective Whim. Our
    Founding Fathers knew this. That's why they wanted to bind down
    men in government by the chains of a written Constitution. The
    idea was to have a government hemmed in by rules -- not government
    by the arbitrary and capricious whims of any group or person.

           Government by whim is unlimited and unlimited government is free
    to control and enslave the people.  If peaceful people are going to be free,
    they must enslave their government by imposing hard and fast rules on
    what politicians and bureaucrats may do.  It is a mistake for people to have
    faith and trust in their elected officials.  Bind them down.

          The relativist premises of modern liberalism are contrary to the
    vision, intent, and spirit of the American idea of using law to impose
    limitations on political government.  It is high time Americans reimposed
    Constitutional limits on government by putting it under an iron-clad strait
    jacket called the policy of Laissez Faire based on the rational principle of
    individual human rights.

_____________________________________________________________