To the editor: Aaron M. Renn, in the final paragraph of his essay, suggests that freedom of speech and economic freedom are somehow equivalent. They are not. ("The inconsistent Libertarians of Convenience," op-ed, May 9)
Freedom of speech is a simpler concept to parse and understand. Short of slander, libel, "fighting words" and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, the right to free speech is a constitutional guarantee. Economic freedom is a more vague notion and not explicit in the Constitution at all.
Renn's false alignment of these two "freedoms" calls into question the validity of his argument. It causes me to wonder whose agenda does such disingenuousness serve.
Ben Miles, Huntington Beach
To the editor: Renn's essay about "Libertarians of Convenience" and their inconsistent demands for deregulation while at the same time wanting to regulate in other areas reminds me of what seems to be the progressive philosophy:
Everything I don't like must be banned. Everything I do like is a human right and must be paid for by others.
Jan Keizer, West Hollywood
To the editor: Reading Renn's attempt to apply logic and consistency to opinion and regulation reminds me of people who attack vegetarians for wearing leather shoes.
Aren't we all "selective libertarians?" We feel stifled by too many rules, yet we adapt to the least offensive in deference to practicality and the common good, including taking our shoes off for airport security.
Jack Cooper, North Hollywood