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.

Jesse Ventura's critique of Minnesota Libertarians

According to Damon Root of Reason Magazine in his article yesterday The Body is a Terrible Thing to Waste: Understanding Jesse Ventura's long, sad decline,

Plus, [Jesse Ventura]'s no longer so quick to identify as a libertarian, sneering nowadays that Minnesota's Libertarians "tend to want anarchy."

I have heard this theme repeatedly from former governor Ventura with his recent reappearance on the political scene.



I don't necessarily disagree with him. Thirteen years after I left the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, where I had been an active member in 1994 and early 1995, chairing the Legislative Committee, contributing to the libertarian groundswell of that day, I returned two evenings ago to see what I could do if Bob Barr were to win the nomination. Perhaps the Minneapolis Bob Barr Meetup could help gather signatures for Barr to appear on the state ballot. The executive meeting was open to the public and friendly.

This week there's tumult in the Libertarian Party at the National Convention in Denver. As I have written many times, "liberty and anarchy are opposed." Now the self-described "anarcho-capitalists" would describe themselves as "purists". They are mistaken. There is nothing pure about advocating vigilante justice, when one person accuses another of violating his or her rights. How can the market ensure "due process"?

On the other hand, the Libertarian Party risks losing the real message of liberty if candidates go forth with policies which brazenly violate people's rights, such as government control over everyone's pursuit of health care.

Both are unacceptable.

I believe the key point is taxation. There are those who insanely believe in no taxation, no government, now.

I share the point of view of founding father James Wilson, who wrote

by some politicians, society has been considered as only the scaffolding of government; very improperly, in my judgment. In the just order of things, government is the scaffolding of society; and if society could be built and kept entire without government, the scaffolding might be thrown down, without the least inconvenience or cause of regret.

and that of William Ellery Channing

Legislation has its limits. It is a power to be wielded against a few evils only. It acts by physical force, and all the higher improvements of human beings come from truth and love. Government does little more than place society in a condition which favors the action of higher powers than its own.

Wary of physical power, Channing looked forward to when moral power, "mightiest when most gentle," would "supersede the coarse workings of government" as "guardian of all right."

Until then we'll need a constitution. Indeed even afterwards we'll need one in case we slip back.

With the anarchists, I have noticed a proclivity for blustering language as well. This is unacceptable. Such language is unacceptable for a serious political campaign where civil behavior is a must.

On the other hand, we must insist on the presumption of liberty, on a respect for our rights. For example, I believe Mike Gravel has a ways to go. I do like his videos, and I hope he continues to engage and debate.

After reading Bob Barr's book The Meaning of Is (2004), I believe he's the candidate most capable of standing up for our civil liberties and due process. His election would be the next best thing to an impeachment, to send an important message to government office-holders that they are not above the law. Barr's track record as described in his book speaks volumes.

Last night I wrote a response to Jesse Ventura's characterization of Minnesota Libertarians as a comment on the Reason Magazine website,

I was an active member of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota in the heady days of 1994 when the Republican Party listened to our message, which was a goal, given our small numbers. It was around that time when I first heard Jesse Ventura announce he was a libertarian on the radio. His colleagues Jason Lewis and Peter Thiele from KSTP came to our LP convention along with the Republican Party House Minority Leader Steve Swiggum, who had a T-shirt saying "Vote Republican" on the front and "or Libertarian" on the back, which he had worn at the Republican convention earlier that day (and which had gotten wet in Barbara Carlson's famous hot tub in which she interviewed politicians). We made our presence known by the revolutionary acts of simply asking pointed questions at town hall meetings on health care, for example, courageously confronting politicians by breaking taboos, speaking repeatedly about the Constitution and the Declaration. We also fostered friendly relationships with those politicians who listened to our message, as did Rep. Swiggum after we had presented him with a petition for term limits at his office. Curious he asked us to stay and talked with us for 45 minutes or so. I remember mentioning how the idea of term limits went back to James Harrington and his influential book "Oceana" in the 1600s. Later he and two other house members met with us and invited us to run as Republicans, an invitation we politely declined.

Later in 1994 Jason Lewis visited with us at Gluek's Restaurant while we waited for the election results on Nov 8, when libertarian messages were predominant in political discussions and swept the Republicans into power. Interestingly Reform Party candidate Dean Barkley and his team joined us, too, there at Gluek's where he then saw the returns come in that qualified his party for major party status, which set the stage for Ventura's run 4 years later. The point I'm trying to make is that it was quite collegial across party boundaries.

Another point is that I have always been a strong advocate for the Constitution. Indeed I have written many times, "Liberty and anarchy are opposed." Where is there a market for due process? To my mind anarchy would lead to feudalism, which is more in line with a desire for old-world conservatism. Anyway I see myself as quite a principled advocate for liberty, for example in my advocacy for Hayek's denationalisation of money.

The other day at Jesse Ventura's book-signing at the Mall of America I handed him a copy of an article I had written in 1994 suggesting a form of election that would get us past the increasingly rigid two-party rule we suffer, by eliminating the problem of spoilers, allowing candidates to act as electors throwing their votes towards leading candidates after a general primary, leaving only two candidates in a mandatory run-off. I thought he'd be interested in this based on what he's said recently about the two parties and their hold on us. We chatted a bit, after he immediately repeated his view that libertarians are anarchists when he realized that my article had been published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair issue, 1994).

I believe the Dallas Accord was silly, and I constantly am dealing with the confusion it wrought, along with the pledge, which should clearly allow for constitutionally limited taxation. I support Bob Barr and hope anarchists have nothing more to do with libertarian political activity. In the academic world, it's good to explore all ideas, but practically speaking when you're at a Ron Paul meetup and someone says that they can't wait for a private war, it can be a bit off-putting.

Here is where Jesse Ventura critiques the "two-party dictatorship." Here is my modest proposal on how to get past the two-party monopoly and save the republic.

• For a Truly General Form of Election

Version 1.1.1 (May 23)