The Libertarian Party is currently receiving its greatest attention in history; one which began not so long ago in the early 1970's. The Nominee, Gary Johnson, is polling at an unprecedented 10% for the Party; 15% or so, I believe, is what's required to be eligible for the national debates, which at this time it seems he has been excluded. It looks as if the Party is finally having its "moment", whether or not their nominee is fit for the job of implementing our philosophy: of self-ownership, non-aggression, strict property rights, economic freedom, and the resulting anti-statism. Google searches are up for "libertarianism", major news outlets are forced to talk about him, and millions in the country are likely hearing the words "libertarian" for the first time; a title designated for us some time decades before Party beginnings once it was clear the word "liberal" had been tainted by "Progressivism" and that those who descended from the classical liberal tradition, who actually believed in liberty, would need a new name.
If it's in an awkward stage of infancy, headed by Gary Johnson, at least in the political realm of it all, the movement for liberty is nonetheless alive. Despite any disagreement with the "political option" for change, or the questioning of how libertarian Johnson is, this is generally a good thing. We want people ideologically motivated, appealing for freedom anywhere and everywhere. Whether anarchists who are disassociated with the system (as I myself am), disaffected voters, or newer Libertarians enthusiastically supporting the Party. While libertarianism has been very much advanced over the last fifty years by some of our greatest thinkers, namely "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, it is still young, and there is much work to be done in furthering our ideas, not just intellectually, but in achieving them in reality.
While not my preference, and even a frequent target of criticism, I feel compelled to find it commendable that anyone is standing up to the State, even if it's only a half-ass pathetic attempt to do so by political means, e.g., conventions, voting, campaigning. As Murray Rothbard, who frankly I often use as a guiding light to understanding political matters, said:
"If you look at it, there are several possible alternatives in dismantling the state.
There is violent revolution, there is non-violent civil disobedience and there is the
political action method. I don’t know which of these will be successful. It’s really
a tactical question which you can’t really predict in advance, it seems to me that it
would be foolhardy to give up any particular arm of this."
Therefore, I cannot write off the political option as totally invalid, though I refuse to use it. Perhaps at least we can see a political, but not ideological, alliance with the Libertarian Party. It isn't incapable of achieving anything. Again, Rothbard:
"Tactically, we could have a balance of power. Even better as an educational weapon.
If we had ten guys in Congress, let’s say, each of whom are constantly agitating for
libertarian purposes—voting against the budget, etc., I think it would be very useful."
The Gary Johnson garden-variety libertarianism, however, is not the Rothbardianism of Ron Paul, who has nearly directly-quoted from works like For A New Liberty, or America's Great Depression and such while in Congress, but a much toned-down version of it, if it's truly libertarian at all. Libertarians believe in voluntary human interaction, and this is hardly the treatment given to the [involuntary] State by Gov. Johnson. To me, "cutting taxes" and "legalizing marijuana" is insufficient to call oneself a libertarian. There is a real, valid philosophy here, which I don't think Johnson abides to or fully understands. At this time in the evolution of the American super-State, I don't believe libertarians should be "gradualists" in our approach to government, but outright, unashamed abolitionists. If we hold that government rests on an immoral, aggressive foundation, then we should oppose its existence entirely. If I could "press the button [eliminating government in one stroke]", I would press it; if slavery could be ended immediately, it should be. My problem with Gary: I don't think he views government as illegitimate at its foundation, needing to be ended root-and-branch, but rather something that is only in need of "reform" or a few "changes" to get it working for "us" again. We cannot, although heading the opposite direction of less government, adopt what is essentially the "democratic socialist" stance that government can be "fixed" if we just tried some different things this time; if policies were just carried out by less-corrupt people.
Libertarianism needs someone out there telling the radical tale of liberty that no one wants to hear. This watered-down, weak one expressed by the LP nominee i'm afraid falls short of what is needed to really rally the people up to overthrow our enslavement. When the time is ripe for someone to be angrily firing out libertarian criticisms of the State, seeing as it has become more dangerous than ever, Gary finds time to introduce himself speaking of his athletic accomplishments. Facing the formidable threat of authoritarianism, Gary thinks we care to know what mountains he's hiked. Honestly, I have strong doubts that he's just some libertarian who was to work carefully through the system, to say, infiltrate the government and end it, instead thinking he really doesn't understand the philosophy at all and has somehow climbed his way to the top.
I really wish just to make note of the issues presented here, on his website, providing commentary on them, as I will evaluate the contents on his "issues" page soon below, but I thought it necessary to include further thinking on the whole topic of dealing with politics.
What is libertarianism?
Perhaps I should assume no prior knowledge of our philosophy. Quickly, libertarians reject violence that is initiated not in self-defense, but as an invasion of someone else’s property rights. We term this "aggression." Abiding by this private property ethic, we adhere to the “Non-Aggression Principle.” We hold that it is never moral to initiate aggression against anyone for any reason, taxation – the right’s violating action the State is founded upon – being enemy number one. We reject the idea of a defense monopoly (the military) to provide protection for us. That is, all initiatory aggression is immoral and criminal while any retaliatory violence (to repel this aggression) is not. In our universal application of non-aggression, we reach the logical conclusion that there is no just or moral foundation for government, nor an economic one if created on terms of violating people's subjective preferences for the ranking of the value of goods. In short, libertarians are anarchists; we oppose the State.
Our political view is simple. It is when there is an absence of political order that there is capitalism; that private property is no longer being massively invaded by inherently socialist governments, spreading their believed-jurisdictions and extending their ever-growing body of legislation upon all its subjects. To us, then, anarchism is capitalism.
Should we engage in the political process?
There are conflicting views in libertarianism over strategy. Should we vote, or not; should we resist, or comply; should we run for office, or erect our own market solutions; etc. My personal view, related to the division of labor in the economy, is that as unique, subjective individuals, we all have a different niche to fill. Maybe indeed some of us are bloggers, voters, businessmen, book-writers, activists, etc. We all can and should be hitting a different angle; no one niche for espousing liberty is right or wrong. Hitting on this same point of the division of labor, we cannot be expected to keep up on what the ruling-class is doing, as we're not professional criminals like them, but producers in the economy. Murray Rothbard, an anarchist, was very much into political agitation, believing we should use politics. He was also critical of "black markets" as a means of circumventing the state (just look at the life sentence they gave Ross Ulbricht, who never violated anyone's rights, despite their view that someone who sells drugs, guns, etc., bears responsibility for those people who voluntarily used them with their own free-will).
"The black market is not going to be the path to liberty, and libertarian
theoreticians and activists have no function in that market…Historically,
classical liberal political parties have accomplished far more for human
liberty than any black markets.
I'm not sure how much I agree, but this is one view among many. Some feel there's no hope whatsoever through politics. I'd say there is, but it isn't the path I prefer to bother with all that. Public opinion can force government to correct its actions. After seeing the failures of Soviet-style Socialism (Communism) were forced to tone down their rhetoric to "democratic socialism", for example. Such that it's so widely prevalent today that no one thinks twice to consider themselves "democratic socialists." Today, it's used as a way to be distinguished from the Nationalist variety, which of course differs only in aesthetics. The central themes – that "society" (which they mean the State) comes before the individual – remain the same. To give them the benefit of the doubt, I think it's fair to say that not all socialists are fascists, but all fascists are socialists. Nevertheless, my point is government ultimately is forced to begin abiding by what "the people" demand for freedom. In my view, us holding these beliefs alone, i.e., not "voting" on them, is substantial progress on the path to liberty.
Two valid libertarian arguments on voting
As all libertarians recognize, we are slaves to a government which claims ownership over us and our property that which it is not the original or voluntary appropriator of, indeed making it the expropriator over private owners. Its decrees being involuntary, we're left with two options: submit, or be shot or caged. These are the options. Since all (or most) people value being alive more than being dead (since they’re still here and the choice to live is not involuntary), most will choose to pay taxes and cooperate with the system. This coercion, however, should not be confused with consent. If you told a girl there would be dire consequences for resisting your attempt to attack her, and she went along with it, smiling even, this rape was not consensual; it was under duress. It is for this reason that it's an unfair argument to be used against the anarchist choosing to remain living in society that "you still use the roads", because we've been given no alternative but to accept what they've given us; in fact, here, this is them realizing the coercive and monopolistic nature of the State, of forcing upon us one option, to the death: fund it, or die.
That being said, we're faced with a moral dilemma when it comes to voting. I don't think that voting, per se, is inherently aggressive. One may, of course, vote for an abolitionist wishing to ended statism/slavery entirely, once and for all. One may not vote, believing it to be corrupt, "consent", a waste of time, or against principles. I find both options – of voting or abstaining – to be perfectly libertarian. Libertarians who vote shouldn’t mind those who don’t, and those who don’t shouldn’t mind those who do.
Allow me to quote Rothbard, again, at length, from the fabulous collection of interviews, reviews, essays, etc:
"Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a
very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by
voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really
adopting the democratic theorist’s position. You would be adopting the
position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is
really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in
elections. In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting
the policy of democracy—that the public is really behind it and
that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the
same thing.
I don’t think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being
placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system;
they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited
choice—there’s no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since
you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn’t try
to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or
possessions. So by voting you can’t say that this is a moral choice, a fully
voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It’s not a fully voluntary situation.
It’s a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which
you can’t vote out of existence. For example, we can’t vote the Presidency
out of existence—unfortunately, it would be great if we could—but since
we can’t why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between
the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference,
incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every
two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at
least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don’t see that it’s immoral to
participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open."
We should get this point. It’s fair and valid. It's just that I personally don't feel we should play their political games, even if as libertarians, anymore than we should show up to a shareholder's meeting of a private company which we own no piece in that intends on declaring it’s going to do something to us if we don’t. One could only imagine the outcry of socialists if you applied any of their own logic to a private business, say, if Walmart announced that they're going to elect a CEO who will now rule and tax everyone in a given area, and that if you don't show up to protest it with your vote, "then you can't complain." Everyone equally would find it a joke, too, if like the monopolist nature of the State, someone declared themselves the sole dealer of protection services and arbiters of justice. No one would accept the ethics of government for the private individual (government can "tax" but you can't steal), yet they [most] permit "government" to break the "laws" (legislation) it says you must abide by (government can "tax" but you can't steal).
So it’s my view that the election process is simply a rigged formality created by the State to gives itself legitimacy; to make it look as if it really is for "the people", giving them a chance to have their say in it. We mustn't forget these people are criminals, in the world’s toughest gang, and couldn't care less about us. The State isn't “the people”; it's the people versus the State. I don’t think we should play a part in it. In my personal and purist anarchist view, I find that the whole act of engaging and participating in political processes, which are only formalities created to give legitimacy to the State they otherwise couldn't attain with simple outright decrees that they have a right to do these things, i.e., they must employ Bernie Sanders' to convince the population of these ideas or else they won't work, is actually the time when, at least in their view, we’re agreeing to be a part of these arrangements they’ve imposed on us. Now, due to the involuntary nature of the State, this isn’t true; as described above we are slaves and maybe it is in our best interest to try and steer the results of the makeup of the ruling-class.
I remember pondering the voluntariness of taxation at a very young age, and my conception of this at the time was that they were because we paid them. If taxes were voluntary, as socialists think, I pondered: it’s only because we actually pay them. From there, most people advance to the statist stage of believing they're voluntary simply because "you get something in return for it (roads, schools), so it's not theft." If taxes are voluntary, then why do socialists tell you to "leave if you don't like it?" I thought voluntary meant that there are no consequences for not doing something for someone? It seems they have conflated coercion and consent as one and the same. Whether it’s true or not, I cannot, myself, give into paying them. I certainly do not think anarchists that do pay taxes are not anarchists; the State is, after all, involuntary and has the guns to prove it. It’s only those who dare risk resisting it that I guess you could say are the “most” principled, but we shouldn’t shun anarchists who work within the system either.
Lastly, there is an economic argument against voting, albeit a weakish one being that you could just go smoke weed instead of voting (which still i’d prefer), and that is amid opportunity costs, a key way of thinking as an economist, you would be sacrificing an end more valuable to yourself (working, writing, things you love) to instead go and vote, a hopelessly valued end eating into your scarce means. With opportunity costs – incurring the “cost” of the alternative action forgone – it is simply a waste of time to participate in political games, whether voting, following campaigns, spending time supporting candidates, or researching them.
On exiting the State: Resistance
For a few years now, being ideologically motivated to end my own enslavement, I have used the strategy of bringing about liberty that is resistance. However unfortunate it is for my own safety, I became convinced that I should die by these principles; namely, that I'm the sole, exclusive, and absolute owner of myself; that no one person nor "collective" entity called "society" has a greater claim to myself than I do. To do so, I decided that liberty doesn't need to wait on anyone else's permission; you can have it now. As so, I do not pay taxes, register vehicles, ask for permission to drive, go to their extortion rackets they call courts. The government is not just philosophically illegitimate; I cannot, for now, accept it in my life as anything that I have an obligation to associate with.
I won’t lie, i’m constantly torn on what to do: Remain a one-man army, susceptible to being plucked-out and put in a cage for advocating liberty, and continuing to take risks in my vulnerability because I believe in my soul it's what's right, or conform and submit to these people and begin complying with their orders because that’s what might provide longevity of life.
Might it sound egotistical to say, but I believe if only a fraction of the population (say, ten-percent; or, thirty-million) did just what I do, then that would be the revolution. There would be nothing else to it. If we all took off our license plates in a national take-off-your-plate-day, then what are they going to do about it? If we stopped showing up at their courts, what are they going to do about it? If we stopped paying our taxes, what are they going to do about it? Nothing. There’s more of us than them, and so the small, ruling minority must keep the masses duped to remain in power. Winning hearts and minds, I do believe, is a great strategy for liberty. If we can open people up, our friends, family, co-workers, enslaved so long under this indoctrination of a “public school” system, to our beliefs of a free, stateless society, then this is all it takes; we don't need to "vote” and express our ideas through the democracy. If a large minority no longer found the monopolist of force tolerable, then they cannot indefinitely subjugate us into going along with their plans.
Whether a tactic or not, I practice ignoring the State out of existence; I practice making the State obsolete by avoiding acknowledging it. More so for my own sanity, but as well for my strategy, I have disassociated myself as much as possible with popular political culture. I’ve hardly listened to anything Trump or Clinton have said. I haven’t listened to anything Obama has said since I decided to comment on his last State of the Union address. These people are not real to me. While all the more dangerous, I literally think the State's facade is faker than "pro-wrestling." There’s no difference to me when Donald Trump shows up at a wrestling event than when he shows up in campaign-form proclaiming his desire for the Presidency. Same joke, different forum. We cannot give them attention, is my take. Just imagine the power if one person tuned-in to the television to see these people debate, or if one person showed up to the voting-booth in their elections. Obviously, proposing things like “mandatory voting” and such, it’s exactly what they want for their to be a turn-out to these things. If there wasn’t, how could they begin to act as if they have a right to rule over us if no one thought so? I happen to readily accept the argument that "what are they going to do about it if we all resist them at the same time?” Nothing. They’re weak when we pay them no mind, and strong when we become emotional about them.
Nor can I justify, in my principles, receiving any “help” from government. I do think, like with voting, that there are two valid sides to this argument as well for accepting government property: (1) It is ours, and we have a greater claim to it than they do, as well as it being preferable we own the property than the State; and that (2) to refuse to be on the government dole in any way is of course acceptably anarchist. Again, I would reject the idea that you’re not an anarchist if you take “government property” (since they cannot legitimately own anything, and it was stolen from us), although I prefer to not accept their property redistribution (welfare, subsidies, etc) seeing that it does play into their system. Just as they want you to go beg for freedom in their democracy, they want you to beg for the scraps they’ve stolen from us. I can’t do either, but won’t condemn you for doing so. Anarchists do not need to go live in the woods as statists suggest we do, even though they will have no problem killing you in the woods too (see Randy Weaver, LaVoy Finicum, etc.) No more than we should “leave the country” if we don’t like being slaves should we leave “their” cities. It is we voluntaryists who actually wish for cooperation, and recognize that in a division of labor many different people are needed in order for “the economy” to work. It’s just that we don’t think there needs to be coercion introduced in order for this market to be successful. We can have markets, and “society”, without government.
My personal take on anarchism is that I can’t just talk about it, but I have to be about it. I will not participate in their democracy, believing it to be wholly immoral and a trap. I don’t expect others to live this way. I don’t think anarchists are compelled to accept resistance, agorism, or off-grid living in order to be genuine anarchists. My view, although I have accepted anarchism as viable, is that even if I didn't think it was we may as well accept it, since we're probably not going to get any reductions in government. If minarchists think that their "limited government" is voluntary (at least they'll never admit otherwise), then they should just be anarchists if it's true there could be this limited, voluntary-state that did nothing more than enforce property rights and contracts. Then they could prove that this "ideal" minarchist State (which failed to stay limited in the American experiment) would rise up anyway out of voluntary arrangements.
Seceding to succeed: The anarcho-capitalist way out
We are not smash-the-state anarchists who wish to mimic their violence; we are not juvenile, Molotov-cocktail throwing anarchists who want chaos, in the sense that it’s not a spontaneous order but a war. We wish to renounce our forced-membership in this organization called “government”, and to save ourselves. To restore economic prosperity, we must remove ourselves from taxing authorities in a far-way distant land, at least localizing our oppression. Secessionist movements are truly the only way out in my view. I may be wrong, but there will be no successful violent revolution; there will be no granting of libertarian ends through statist means. It is when, slowly but surely, people begin withdrawing from the system and stop being afraid to stand against it that liberty will be gained and power lost. America, if it can be recalled was founded upon such secession; hence the Declaration of Independence, a libertarian document in my eyes. However, The Constitution not being that thing (since it empowered a government, and governments are not libertarian) which “the founders” just sat down and wrote to ensure liberty after the Revolution, but coming a decade or so later.
Of course, as opposed to a one-world-government, and ironic-sounding from the libertarian, is that the more states we have – the more the world is broken up into tiny states that are deprived of super-power – then the more free we are. We should cheer everywhere that there is a movement for one state to break-off from another (say, “Brexit; and much more so when, within that state, there are other calls by the people to be free from that government, such as counties seceding during the Civil War). But "state secession" does not go far enough in our view; it stops short of complete liberty of the individual. Being so prolific of a writer in Austro-libertarianism, and likely attributed to being its founder, nonetheless its heavy-weight, we can again quote Rothbard, who helped sell me on the idea with this one:
“Once one concedes that a single world government is not necessary,
then where does one logically stop at the permissibility of separate states?
If Canada and the United States can be separate nations without being
denounced as in a state of impermissible ‘anarchy’, why may not the South
secede from the United States? New York State from the Union? New York City
from the state? Why may not Manhattan secede? Each neighborhood?
Each block? Each house? Each person?”
Indeed, it was this thought, of "states-rights", which led me easily to accepting anarcho-capitalism: if we can have fifty states, I asked myself, then "why not one-hundred? two-hundred? why not one-thousand different security companies that compete for our protection business in the market versus the single monopolist, the State?" I saw, and see, no reason why we wouldn’t want competition in the offering of liberty, and how a monopolist would ever be preferable in assuring us such.
Should we get excited over the LP?
It's possible there is hope within the Party, personally having anarchist friends who are operating within it, but still I will not engage in statist means to libertarian ends myself. The Radical Caucus wing of the Party seems to understand what Gary does not, that "the only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression." It was Darryl Perry who was seemingly the most libertarian in the recent run for the nomination, quite consistently applying the principles. Gary Johnson is sort of the “establishment” Libertarian, if there was one. He's a weak candidate at best, who surely won't crush anyone in a debate with sound economics. He will employ basic, surface-level libertarianism, like "everyone should be free to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't effect anyone else", which isn't wrong, but isn't rigorous or compelling. At worst, he's not a libertarian at all, but is someone who has infiltrated the Party and meant to weaken its message. I won’t engage in conspiracy here, but there are some who think so.
It's extremely unlikely Johnson could win, and this assumes the system is set up that way. Democracy is just political theater; it's the show they have to put on in order to justify stuffing the person the power-elite has pre-picked into office. What should be obvious now, is these people “running” are just goons in a government-planned show to make us think we had a chance. Would I rather have Gary Johnson than the demonstrable fascists, Clinton and Trump? You can bet your ass on it.. Do I think he's satisfying libertarian? Quite far from it, without knowing other things he's said, purely judging from the issues he puts forth. I personally find no problems with not voting, yet hoping that those who do will elect the "libertarian" candidate. Maybe it is a problem that I do believe change may be had by voting, yet not doing so myself, but I refuse to accept the logic that "if you don't vote you can't complain", or that "a vote for yourself is a vote for [insert worst candidate here]”, or that we should play their “lesser of two evils” game.
Perhaps it could be argued that he's forced to go for mass appeal; that he cannot come out with an anarcho-libertarian agenda and hope to see such success as he has, but is rather forced to adopt what he has in order to court those who call themselves “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”, but don’t yet identify as libertarian.. But I don't believe this is the case, and I don't believe we get anywhere by diluting our message for absolute liberty. I have no hunch that Johnson is among the brand of closet-anarchists, like Ron Paul, or Judge Napolitano, but is towing a very safe, conservative-esque message that is cheaply "libertarian." I didn’t require some safe-space version of libertarianism to accept the ideology, and nor should the public be sold this Party version of “libertarianism.”
I'm not one to shy away from definitions because other people have ruined them, proudly proclaiming that I desire anarcho-capitalism, so I don't think we should stop calling ourselves libertarians, apparently needing to be distinguished by the "little L", just because the population will come to associate our philosophy with the Libertarian Party. Indeed, we should continue to show that we – the anarchists who have fully applied the non-aggression principle to include that no amount of government is legitimate – are the real libertarians. Lately, any time it's brought up that I consider myself libertarian, the association is made: "Oh, so, Gary Johnson?" There's nothing wrong with this, really, although I reply "no." Refer again to the first paragraph: The people at least are hearing the word "libertarian", whatever they think it means, realizing that there is a formidable political opposition to the paradigm they've been sold of "left and right" socialism. Whatever turns out with Johnson (if he’s not invited to “the debates”), the political paradigm is, as far as I can see, on the way out.
There isn’t much more time here to say politically what this could mean for the country: could he get elected, and if so, affect change; could this get people interested in libertarianism, so that we get someone better next time; or, will this turn people off of libertarianism, since he is, as i'll show, far from an ideal representation of the philosophy. If Johnson were somehow elected, I wouldn't be cheering and crying; i'd be astonished, first off, but I'll sit back for the proof of less, to little-to-no government to come my way. If he were to get in there, against all odds, it's hard to comprehend what he would be up against in rolling back the behemoth government, were that even something we wanted to do. I don’t think it is. Perhaps willing to roll back the State a little bit, Johnson seems to be quite content with the status quo. Where the libertarian wants change in a radically new direction, Johnson wants to make marginal adjustments to the way things work. Unless he’s just some quirky, happy-go-lucky kind of guy that can’t be shaken up, nothing about the government seems to actually piss him off. Honestly, I’d like to see a furious candidate. That might get me riled up. As for now, it’s not in my nature to go get behind and rally support for a politician, even if he’s “the most libertarian.” I just can't do it.
I can't cover Gary Johnson the man, or his quotes as a whole – that Hillary Clinton is a "wonderful public servant", the guarantee (don't click the citation, it will give Austin Petersen money) of Mitt Romney in his administration – and other problematic comments he's made, but want to address the contents of the platform he's promoting to anyone who would come to view his site, knowing nothing else about him. Whether he’s a puppet, or real, I do not know. I wish to question: Are his ideas – his "platform", according to his "issues" webpage – libertarian? I will compare Gary’s position with what I believe is a proper libertarian response.
(continued here)