The assassination yesterday of Charlie Kirk in Orem, Utah, has stunned people. Among other things, that and work in other fields by us here at TPOL meant we didn’t get an issue out yesterday.

Charlie Kirk was not a libertarian; he was a christian-type, perhaps libertarian-leaning, conservative. He had too much trust in human government, despite his apparent love of the Lord and dedication to fighting against tyranny (in some forms). Of course, he was not alone in this: many Libertarians and libertarians are minarchists. And have a mental dissonance: thinking that loyalty to God and to government both was and is possible.

Many have already expressed the idea that this killing, together with dozens of other events, herald an actual civil war: violent action on a much broader scale than killing a Ukrainian immigrant, conducting “peaceful protests” in Occupy X zones to protest the death of criminals, attacking and cancelling people (sometimes physically) for saying “All lives matter” and similar things.

Some have even stated that the Woke “left” – the Democratic Party leadership, the Regressives, the Tranzis – are deliberately inciting a civil war. Not a war between the states, not a war of secession, but a war to gain total control over government at all levels. To create a “United State of America.” (in the guise of a “democracy,” of course).

Still others have told us that they welcome the Woke starting a civil war and resorting to wholesale violence. Both because it demonstrates that the social justice warriors realize how badly they are losing the culture wars and because the “left” and “progressives” will be totally outmatched, and probably destroyed. At worst, suppressed for several generations.

Honestly, these attitudes disturb us. There may be no effective response to the evil of Tranzis and their hatred of liberty and freedom other than to fight. To physically defend ourselves against those who would enslave us more. But the risks are incredible: the death toll, the aftermath, and the risk of completely unpredictable and negative results.

Is it too late? We don’t think so, and we pray that does not happen. But the chances are growing greater.

The lines of the growing conflict are being drawn tighter and tighter. One example comes from Oregon, where a State Representative, Cyrus Javadi, has left the GOP to become a Democrat. In a statement to Newsweek, Javadi said he “switched because the Republican Party abandoned the principles that drew me to it in the first place: limited government, fiscal responsibility, free speech, free trade, and, above all, the rule of law.”

Clearly, Mr. Javadi was deluded: while many members of the GOP do believe in such principles, the GOP from the beginning has diligently worked for more and more government power. Starting with Fremont in 1856 and “Honest Abe” in 1860. Lincoln also demonstrated that the GOP, if anything, stood for irresponsibility in fiscal matters. An attitude demonstrated by generations of GOP-dominated Congresses, presidents including Nixon, Reagan, the Bushes, and now The Donald. Its view on free speech and free trade swings like one of those circular clotheslines.

Mr. Javadi’s position on “the rule of law” may be deceptive: does he mean jack-booted thugs are to be worshipped? If so, that might be one thing in which the Democratic Party he has joined might be in tune with him. But the Democrats are every bit as bad on the other principles he claims the GOP had abandoned: one can argue that at least since 1900 or so, the Democratic Party has never subscribed to those principles.

Charlie Kirk’s bloody death is, again, another reminder that the tree of liberty must be watered by blood: of lovers of liberty as well as tyrants.