Cage Rattling from the Peanut Gallery

I have been somewhat reticent lately due to a myriad of personal issues. I suppose that my recent campaign and election would be the paramount reason for my absence. Ideally, I would find the time necessary to blog, campaign, fundraise and a whole host of other activities I am involved in. However, I remain resolute in maintaining my family as the priority in my life. As this activity (blogging) is perhaps the lowest on my list of priorities, it has suffered the most from my increased involvement in other areas.

I make not apologies for my involvement in the Libertarian Reform movement. Nor will I apologize for being a constitutionalist. Being such allows me to utilize a broad brush in my criticism of our elected leaders. From my initial involvement with the LP, it became painfully clear that many in the party, for some reason, seek exclusivity and dogmatic purity as opposed to adopting a rational approach of providing practical policy solutions. I have watched the LP for over 20 years in electoral politics. Practicing the policy of purges and Puritanism will only result in the marginalization of the libertarian movement and our nation will slip further down the slope to despotism.

Today, I read two articles in Rational Review(1), which requires that I respond. These articles provide a shining example of the two apparent camps within the libertarian movement. I will allow you to make up your own mind regarding the validity of either position. I hope you come to realize, as I did long ago, which path must be taken in order to combat the march towards statism in our lifetime. I will provide links to the articles below. I did not feel the need to critique the latter article by Mr. Kalafut, as his position is very near my own. Mr. Hancock’s article, on the other hand, exhibits the attitude within the libertarian movement, which has and will continue to result in abysmal failure. Therefore, with your indulgence, I will slice and dice this piece of literary “bath tissue,” for I grow weary of the notion that people like me are simply not “libertarian enough.”

History shows why we need to gain popular support, not merely elected positions, if we are to have any chance of achieving a free society. Politicians don't lead the mob, they represent them. A populace educated by licensed media and government mandated schools had little interest in a philosophy that promised nothing but the promise to be left alone. Libertarians also knew that government actions over time would provide graphic evidence to motivate support for freedom solutions.

Mr. Hancock touches on a key factor. We need to gain popular support. That support can not be obtained by defining the electorate as a “mob.” You will never garner votes by belittling or offending the electorate. Hostility towards the populace will certainly be requited.

Libertarians in general knew government had every motivation to grow in size and intrusiveness and lacked any real deterrent against doing so. The Libertarian Party represented a growing understanding that force or the threat of force, in whatever form, was required to maintain control of a population increasingly aware of the illegitimacy of so much government in their lives. Most people simply wish to be left alone, but government cannot leave them alone. Men in uniforms with shiny badges and seal-embossed parchments demanding service to "The King" have always been accompanied by the threat of violence for non-compliance.

The purpose of government is to protect the lives, liberties and property of the citizenry. While it is painfully clear that government now operates outside its constitutional restraints, returning to the original intent can never be achieved by excluding oneself from the political process. After all, the guardians of liberty are supposed to be the electorate.

The Revolution between the ears won't take place all at once, but it will take place overnight. One morning everything will be different. Government actions against the people in the form of laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, surveillance of the innocent, controls on communications and the supposed dominion over one's body are creating an explosive environment, and the central planners know it. These police state tactics are not for our protection from outside threats, but for the protection of government from the American people. Government limits on our ability to seek redress and physically defend against tyranny are increasing -- an outcome predicted for decades by libertarians.

I suppose that Mr. Hancock believes that somewhere a "magic button" exists that will facilitate this change. What difference does it make if a people are enlightened when the shackles of servitude have been donned and locked due to apathy? Keeping the government in check through the electoral process is the duty of every American.

There are reasons to avoid being in public office these days. I firmly believe there will be at least a metaphorical guillotining of public officials responsible for destroying the American Dream for tens of millions of Americans. And I do not wish to be affiliated with those standing in line for their turn to have the lever pulled on their fate. I have absolutely no political goal other than to be left alone. My whole family and large circle of friends have invested a great deal of time, effort and money to that end. But I don't see wielding the power of elective office as a path to that goal.

What is the purpose of a political party? A political party is an organization that seeks to attain political power within a government, usually by participating in electoral campaigns. Parties often espouse a certain ideology, but may also represent a coalition among disparate interests. (2) What does he suggest the Libertarian Party should seek to obtain? One thing is certain; liberty will be lost if the current paradigm continues.

While content to focus my efforts at home in Arizona I have become increasingly aware of those with a great desire to be a "respected member" of the very system we oppose. The claim that one needs positions of power in order to free individuals is very troubling. We should be the Hobbits who do not seek power over others, and are willing to make great investments to ensure being left alone. Changing the hands on the levers of power won't eliminate the levers. The abandonment of the principled foundation of libertarianism now would be disastrous and leave us with nothing of value to distinguish us from our ideological competition.

What system do we oppose Mr. Hancock? Is it the Republican form of Government? Or, is it electoral politics? I have startling news for Mr. Hancock. The Libertarian Party DID NOT found libertarianism. I am sure that Frederick Bastiat and Thomas Jefferson would have something to say about this assertion. Additionally, since they both worked within the political system to advance the cause of liberty, I would suspect that they would consider this statement rather nonsensical and naive. Refusing to participate in the political process will lead to tyranny, oligarchy and despotism.

And while most libertarians would welcome a return to the size of government allowed by the US Constitution as championed in the Federalist Papers, many recognize that this document created the opportunity for the powerful central government we oppose today. The liberty-minded people of the American Revolution were profoundly ambivalent about the US Constitution, and detailed their concerns in the Anti-Federalist papers. What good are checks and balances when all three branches of government are aligned against the rights of the individual? The Bill of Rights was the libertarian compromise. These ten "Thou Shalt Nots" of government was the deal made to avoid conflict. But the document has proven to be binding only on the people, in our forced support of our present government, while every single one of the Bill of Rights is constantly violated without hesitation by government. I am certain that I am not the only one wondering when this "social contract" will finally be declared null and void.

Huh? So the Constitution is bad? Or, does Mr. Hancock simply promote anarchy? I suspect it is the latter.

I am afraid we may become victims of our own success. The more influential the Libertarian Party became, the more the party attracted those who would make use of that influence for their own purposes. Also, Libertarian parties around the country have been lured by the cash benefits provided to political parties, and lately to local campaigns. Individuals acting in the name of libertarianism and the expansion of freedom hope to change the National Platform of the Libertarian Party of the United States in order to allow the acceptance of party and campaign welfare in the fight against social and economic welfare.

Now he gets to his point. There appears to be too many libertarians that are not libertarian enough for Mr. Hancock’s taste. Those who promote limited government and expanded individual liberty need not apply. Let me assure you Mr. Hancock, unless the LP takes a new direction, "success" will not be on the horizon. Marginalization can in no way be considered successful.

One thing is for sure. Some of us are unwilling to toss liberty by the wayside as a natural cycle of events to wait for a Second Coming. Time is running short and the cost will be too great if we fail to reign in our government. Mr. Hancock reminds me of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove. So obsessed is he with purity of essence that he is willing to watch his world destroyed in the process of protecting himself against a perceived, yet imagined, threat. Mr. Hancock is a shining example of why there must be a change of guard in the LP. Too many libertarians are no longer willing to allow “business as usual” to prevail. This is a political party, not a philosophical debating society. Please Mr. Hancock, take a seat and allow rational individuals with vision and determinant action provide the direction for a change. Your method has a well-known track record of failure. We must demand better results.

(1) Rational Review
(2) Definition of Political Party
(3) Mr. Hancock’s article Link
(4) Mr. Kalafut’s article Link