A letter to a disillusioned Republican

A Republican wrote me long ago,

I wanted to tell you that I bought Liberty the other day. I enjoyed many of the articles. The magazine sure does bash government, playing no favorites with any party. Some of the pieces, especially some of the letters, had too much of a pro-anarchy slant to them for my taste. It is true that our government has become too intrusive, to the point of denying the people liberties. That has to change. But I still think our system is not flawed and there is a need for government. A society without government would be nothing less than chaotic, with no means to protect the people's liberties when some tried to seek the natural desire for power. Anyway, I did enjoy reading the magazine and tend to feel as disillusioned with the Republican candidates as many of the authors. They are all old, long-time politicians who are in their positions because they have excelled at "playing the game".

I responded with this letter,

The mainstream among libertarians (classical liberals, market liberals... ) in a tradition that stretches back through liberalism of the 1800's, whiggism of the 1700's, and the leveller movement of the 1600's is one characterized not by antipathy to government, but rather to oppression. Allow me to quote from an anonymous tract of the English "levellers" who were influenced by the Anabaptist movement which began in the 1500's

The King, I confesse, has reason to cry out upon the A[n]abaptists, because he knowes them to be enemies not of Government, but oppression in Government, and all those who intend to oppresse in any manner, ought, if they will be true to themselves to doe so too; for the Anabaptists are oppressions enemies, whoever be the oppressours.

The Compassionate Samaritane (1646)

The anabaptist movement contained a full spectrum with regard to the oppression they saw, from the violent Munsterites to the civil Levellers to the pacifist Mennonites. The first of these did their best to discredit all of Anabaptism by their violent anarchy. The latter, as earlier Christians did, successfully protested oppression with their nonresistant martyrdom. The Levellers found middle ground in their patient and civil resistance acting to reform government through petitioning and constitutionalism, setting an example for those a century later and an ocean apart. Compare these words from the Leveller and Anabaptist Richard Overton to those of Jefferson 130 years later

For by natural birth all men are equal, ... born to like propriety, liberty and freedom, and as we are delivered of God by the hand of nature into this world, every one with a natural innate freedom and propriety, ... even so we are to live, every one equally ... to enjoy his birthright and privilege, even all whereof God by nature hath made him free .... Every man by nature being a king, priest, prophet, in his own natural circuit and compass, whereof no second may partake but by deputation, commission, and free consent from him whose right and freedom it is.

Richard Overton (1646) - An Arrow Against All Tyrants

...The web offers a medium whereby articles may be clarified by links to lexicons where terms may be defined as the writer understands them and to other articles that allow for the more depth depending on the interest and strength of the reader.

For example, ... the term 'libertarian' I would link to an article written some four decades ago by Dean Russell of the Foundation of Economic Education

Here is a suggestion: Let those who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian."

Webster's New International Dictionary defines a libertarian as "one who holds to the doctrine of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."

In popular terminology, a libertarian is the opposite of an authoritarian. Strictly speaking, a libertarian is one who rejects the idea of using violence or the threat of violence—legal or illegal—to impose his will or viewpoint upon any peaceful person. Generally speaking, a libertarian is one who wants to be governed far less than he is today.

• A libertarian believes that the government should protect all persons equally against external and internal aggression, but should otherwise generally leave people alone to work out their own problems and aspirations.
  
  While a libertarian expects the government to render equal protection to all persons against outright fraud and misrepresentation, he doesn't expect the government to protect anyone from the consequences of his own free choices. A libertarian holds that persons who make wise choices are entitled to enjoy the fruits of their wisdom, and that persons who make unwise choices have no right to demand that the government reimburse them for their folly.


• A libertarian expects his government to establish, support, and enforce the decisions of impartial courts of justice—courts which do not recognize or refer to a person's race, religion, or economic status. If justice is to be rendered, the decisions of these courts must be as binding upon government officials and their actions as upon other persons and their actions.


• A libertarian respects the right of every person to use and enjoy his honestly acquired property—to trade it, to sell it, or even to give it away—for he knows that human liberty cannot long endure when that fundamental right is rejected or even seriously impaired.


• A libertarian believes that the daily needs of the people can best be satisfied through the voluntary processes of a free and competitive market. And he holds the strong belief that free persons, using their own honestly acquired money, are in the best possible position to understand and aid their fellow men who are in need of help.


• A libertarian favors a strictly limited form of government with many checks and balances—and divisions of authority—to foil abuses of the fearful power of government. And generally speaking, he is one who sees less, rather than more, need to govern the actions of others.


• A libertarian has much faith in himself and other free persons to find maximum happiness and prosperity in a society wherein no person has the authority to force any other peaceful person to conform to his viewpoints or desires in any manner. His way of life is based on respect for himself and for all others.


• A libertarian doesn't advocate violent rebellion against prevailing governments—except as a last resort before the concentration camps. But when a libertarian sees harm rather than good in certain acts of government, he is obligated to try his best to explain to others who advocate these measures why such compulsory means cannot bring the ends which even they desire.


• The libertarian's goal is friendship and peace with his neighbors at home and abroad.

Dean Russell (1958) - Who is a libertarian?

David Nolan, founder of the Libertarian Party in the early '70s, would, according to a recent article of his, not call anyone a libertarian who supported a flat income tax as opposed to a sales tax or his preferred tax, a property tax. This is absurd and shows the effects of prolonged partisanship....

Look to the Cato Institute for the mainstream. Its founders originally were active in the Libertarian Party but realized it was going nowhere (according to a recent Wall St. Journal article). They use the term "market liberalism" to describe their political orientation. I highly recommend their recently published "Cato Handbook for Congress". Former Minnesota Congressman Tim Penny just became a fellow there.

Cato has been touting the national sales tax, too, which is anathema to my mind. What is important is finding sources of information that share a reverence for the spirit of liberty....

The real friends of the Union are those,

Who are friends to the authority of the people, the sole foundation on which the Union rests.

Who are friends to liberty, the great end, for which the Union was formed.

Who are friends to the limited and republican system of government, the means provided by that authority, for the attaining of that end.

James Madison (1792) - The Union

I wrote the letter above after leaving the Libertarian Party in the mid-90's, entering the political wilderness where "none of the above" received most of my votes, as the Libertarian Party seemed to offer zero-tax nonsense.

Recently I've been reconsidering joining if only the party could disentangle itself successfully from the anarchists, from those who would use libertarian dreams to fuel anarchic primevalism. Liberty, paired with constitutional power, is not a stopping point on the "freedom train" of the anarchists, as they would like to portray it. Libertarians and anarchists are camps opposed. Now if they want the name "libertarian" now, just as others wanted the good name "liberal" and destroyed it, fine. That's life. The ideas remain.

The ideas of liberty and our Constitution need our support now, whatever we call them. We have little time. This is a defining moment, November 2008. Call us "pirates" for all I care. The Levellers adopted a label of opprobrium. Just let us call ourselves something we can rally around. I'm calling myself a "mugwump" here out of respect for the 19th-century mugwumps' prescience and rare concern for future generations. Some label we're bound to settle on. "Libertarian" for now this year will probably still do.

My instinct is to renew the symbol of the liberty pole, which was common in the first half of our history together. Let's use it now again, but try to keep it universal, above government, above mere parties, on the level of our Declaration of Independence.

Now that Bob Barr has won the nomination of the Libertarian Party, please consider voting for him. He's driving the anarchists batty.

Speaking of anarchists, don't you see there's more anarchy in the Republican Party lately with their nonchalant disregard for the long-held principles of this country, namely habeas corpus and due process. P. J. O'Rourke was recently in Minneapolis arguing that libertarians have no sense for tradition. What? Libertarians, in my experience, have a profound devotion to the traditions that matter, namely those revolving around procedural rights, such as trial by jury, warrants, torture, civilian oversight of the military, and such. Where is the concern these days amongst the Republican Party for these traditional niceties, some of which date back to Magna Carta?

In the March/April 1995 issue, The Minnesota Libertarian republished Dean Russell's definition of a libertarian, which I had submitted, as its front-page article. The editors of The Minnesota Libertarian added this note

Although this essay was written 40 years ago it still reflects the attitude of Libertarians today.

Version 1.1 - Jun 5, 2008

Letter to Jason Lewis (1995)

I wrote a letter to Jason Lewis on January 17, 1995. At the time, he was a talk show host on KSTP. Later he hosted a town hall meeting on health care for his radio show, which featured Twila Brase, the executive director of Citizens for Choice in Health Care, as it was known then.

This letter captures how I viewed the libertarian movement at the time, which differs from the views of the present-day anarchists Bob Barr defeated in Denver.

Thank you for your courageous work on behalf of liberty in Minnesota. Remember that "only when it is dark enough, can you see the stars." (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

...

There are three components of CCHC's effort, as I see it: 1) standing up for a free market in health care with equity in government law and taxes and against government usurpation, 2) acting as a clearing house for information to provide constructive criticism non-coercively to those in the market, and 3) suggest[ing] market-oriented changes in the tax-funded expenditure government makes in the name of the poor. The first two are obviously in consonance with libertarian principle (what are we libertarians but citizens for choice in everything innocent and good?), and the last being potentially but not necessarily in consonance with a transition away from dependence. I believe, as did our Libertarian gubernatorial hopeful Eric Olson, that gradualism is the humane way to wean those caught in dependence on government, so long as the direction towards independence is stubbornly maintained. I believe in shock therapy when it comes to opening up the free market with full equity in law and taxes. I do fear that the Republicans will carelessly be shockist in the former and gradualist in the latter, fomenting blind despair. As to my participation in CCHC, I plan to vote on the latter and abstain from votes on the former. (In my view, this is how libertarian senators should vote to stay true to principle and remain unblinded by power. As for how to wean from dependence, representatives could vote as their constituents instruct them with appropriate supermajority requirements to ensure that, while tax-funded benefits continue to be given, "gratitude" is not directed to any one Bismarckian party but to "the people" our representatives represent. I could go on ... but ... back to the point.)

CCHC needs membership fast to be effective this year. May I suggest the possibility of Twila Brase appearing on your show to get the good word out? Twila Brase has shown more leadership in organizing a grassroots effort opposing government control of health care in Minnesota than anyone else to my knowledge. The idea of asking you to talk with Twila on the air was actually made by someone else on the board who admires your work, to which another member expressed reservations about being associated with libertarians (I plan to lend him the Cato Institute publication Beyond Liberal and Conservative). Reminds me of the confusion sown against the Anabaptists a few centuries ago:

The King, I confesse, has reason to cry out upon the A[n]abaptists, because he knowes them to be enemies not of Government, but oppression in Government, and all those who intend to oppresse in any manner, ought, if they will be true to themselves to doe so too; for the Anabaptists are oppressions enemies, whoever be the oppressours.

Anonymous Leveller (1646) - The Compassionate Samaritane

Let us sow clarity.

All my best....

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Here's the postscript to that letter. Sound familiar??

PS: Last week (when I finally ventured forth into the world of online services) I chanced upon a message in the CompuServe Libertarian Debate Section on the subject of GOP "Reform" from Steve Dasbach, chair of the LP, dated January 8. In response to an earlier statement in that forum that "the LP will never become a truly viable 3rd Party until it can attract and hold those who may only share 70% of the 'pure' Libertarian views," it read:

I fully share your opinion. In my view, the LP must become a Party where we all agree on the direction that the country needs to head (toward greater individual liberty) while holding a variety of views about how far and how fast we should move in that direction. In effect, we need to work together to implement the changes we all agree on, and worry about our differences when they actually become relevant.
Steve Dasbach
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee

I remember one night when you were to have him, or someone else from the LP National, on. I rushed out of the barber's chair to be in my car in the parking lot for it[,] only to be disappointed at the no-show. I hope you have an opportunity to try again, if you have not already.

A dozen years later, I repeated my point, to be libertarian is not to be an anarchist. Indeed anarchy is not even in the direction of greater individual liberty - Hey hipsters, liberty is the new left (2007)

It was bound to happen. Libertarian is the new left.


Decentralization defines this new spectrum. Decentralization and liberalization are our best defense against those who would take us down the road to serfdom. Isn't that the great lesson of the 20th century? Yes, yes, in so many ways, but ...

Wait! Just one question.

Looking at this diagram, wouldn't anarchy be on the left?

No, I'd say... it's somewhere on the right.

Constitutional law, grounded in the American Declaration of Independence, with its presumption of liberty, with its limited powers, with its mixed republic, with its elections and juries, with its federalism, with its measured taxation, would stand to the left. True progress comes from the respect each of us has for a certain sphere of innocence and independent action that attaches to every person in his or her individual life and social interactions. The rights in this sphere are equal, innumerable, and inalienable. They do not conflict. They are natural. They are neutral. Creative people thrive in this freedom and build the world without having to ask permission. The Declaration of Independence is far left. It calls for a revolution in our thinking, in our culture, of which we have barely scratched the surface. The Constitution, in its art, merely tries to measure up.

As for the rest of the spectrum, amid the legal anarchy, you might find semblances of law. Perfunctory law would lie somewhere in the middle, going through the motions. Zombie law would patrol on the right, dead yet walking, and arbitrary.

Liberty and anarchy are distinct and opposed, as are liberty and collectivism.

We can agree to move towards Liberty, but not Anarchy, nor Collectivism.


Speaking of anabaptists, was the Dallas Accord a modern-day Bocholt? Better for libertarians the civility of the Levellers, who wrote the nearest thing to a precursor of our Declaration of Independence, An arrow against all tyrants (Richard Overton, 1646), except perhaps for the Dutch "declaration of independence" (1581), which does need a better translation.

Note on CCHC:

CCHC recently waged a successful campaign to stop SF 3138, a bill passed overwhelmingly by both parties in the Minnesota legislature to warehouse DNA information from blood samples taken from babies born in Minnesota without parental consent. It's like taking each baby's fingerprints. Can you picture that? It's an invasion of medical privacy. Parents have the right to choose with whom they entrust such sensitive information. It's troubling to see government office-holders barging in to procure this valuable information, uninvited, and holding onto it. Governor Pawlenty vetoed the bill 11 days ago. From his letter announcing the veto, it sounds like Minnesota officers still will take each baby's DNA fingerprints without parental consent, only they will refrain from storing it in their warehouse. Do I understand that correctly?

CCHC's change of name since has been unfortunate. I'd argue against it vehemently if I were still a Director. Innocent denotation, but bad connotations.