[Lnc-business] rant from a lost convert

Starchild sfdreamer at earthlink.net
Tue Sep 5 07:50:45 EDT 2017


Hi Steven,

	Thank you for your thoughtful message to members of the Libertarian National Committee.

	I'm not sure any of us – you, myself, or anyone in the LP, is qualified to call ourselves libertarian without any reservations whatsoever. I'm not sure I've ever met anyone whose positions always, without exception, reflect the Non-Aggression Principle and who has always acted accordingly in life, and I likewise have yet to meet anyone who does not have a libertarian view on anything. My view is that, as you wisely observe, it's not a matter of "in or out" of libertarianism, but a matter of degree. If I say someone is a libertarian, that either kind of lets them off the hook for any non-libertarian views they may hold or any non-libertarian actions they may take, or worse, may give the false impression that those non-libertarian views or actions are in fact libertarian. If I say someone is not a libertarian, that fails to give them credit for the libertarian views they do hold, or worse, may give the false impression that those libertarian views are not really libertarian. 

	The Libertarian Party has for the most part, I believe, upheld the spirit of the "Dallas Accord", an informal agreement of unity adopted at our 1974 convention in Dallas, Texas, in which anarchists and minarchists (believers in limited government) essentially agreed to disagree, and to focus on advancing the cause of freedom without specifying a final goal of either limited government or no government at all. I support this attempt to work together despite differences of opinion, and share your concerns about the fragmented condition of the libertarian movement. I have pushed for us to put more links to other movement organizations on our website, and to do more to support them and their work. I'd like to see us offer them free booth space at our conventions, talk about their efforts and achievements in our communications and not just those of the LP, encourage our members to join and support them, etc.

	But while I believe we need more movement solidarity, different individuals and groups within the movement shouldn't be afraid to criticize and disagree with each other on matters of how to best advance the cause of freedom. We should just keep in mind the advice sometimes offered during heated debates at Libertarian Party conventions, "The enemy is not in this room". Be forthright about our intra-movement disagreements and not attempt to suppress them, but recognize that others in the movement are in the big picture still our comrades even when we do disagree with some of their positions (or their failure to take a clear position, as in LP chair Nick Sarwark's recent criticisms of Tom Woods and others for not denouncing ethno-nationalists like those who marched in Charlottesville).

	My sense is that Nick generally has kept that big picture in mind. In a recent interview on the Jason Stapleton show for instance, he repeatedly voiced his appreciation for the pro-freedom work being done by Tom Woods and others, including Jason himself (who basically sided with Woods, and likewise showed admirable movement solidarity by inviting Nick on his show to explain his position):

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/the-jason-stapleton-program-nick-sarwark-talks-about-the-lp-white-nationalism-and-tom-woods/#comment-1659996

	As you are doing here, I believe Nick was offering constructive criticism from the perspective of someone who cares about freedom, while recognizing that the objects of his critical remarks also care about freedom. I don't think those remarks were politically motivated in the sense I presume you mean, partly because I don't see that he personally stands to gain anything by voicing such criticisms. If he leaves us for a position with the Democrats or some other left-wing organization, I will admit I was wrong!

	However you say that you "long since dropped out of the Libertarian Party", so obviously your concerns do not stem from this latest tiff. After reading your message a couple times, I'm still somewhat puzzled as to what you found so unsatisfactory about the Libertarian Party that it was able to overcome your obvious desire for libertarian unity and cause you to leave. Where else can those in this country who support freedom unite politically in a bottom-up, participatory movement, if not in the Libertarian Party? Shouldn't folks like yourself set aside your differences and join (or rejoin) that common project and strive to make it better?

Love & Liberty,

                                    ((( starchild )))
At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
                        RealReform at earthlink.net
                                 (415) 625-FREE
                                   @StarchildSF


P.S. – I'm an optimist, and don't believe that "America, as a country, is so far down the rabbit hole that it is beyond redemption, and is doomed." But if it is, then all the more reason not to put all our eggs in that basket, and instead seek to ensure that libertarianism is seen as a universal set of values, not an American set, and that the libertarian movement grows into a truly worldwide movement. 

If we do not want libertarianism, or our movement, to be marginalized in the eyes of the 95% of the world that is outside the United States, as tied to American nationalism, "The West" or similar parochial concepts, it behooves us to seek to put some distance between ourselves and those who put such tribalist/collectivist values ahead of the cause of liberty and justice for ALL.

Paulie Frankel has a good piece on why it is important at this juncture for libertarians to distinguish what we believe in from ethno-nationalism, pointing out among other things some recent headlines in the mainstream press and some of the search results coming up when people search for the term "libertarian" online:

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/09/paul-frankel-why-libertarians-need-to-denounce-the-alt-right-and-white-nationalists-and-dont-need-to-worry-about-libertarian-socialists-and-antifa/


P.P.S. – 	I very much appreciated your comments about the Libertarian Party's operations, and susceptibility to the same problems that afflict governments and lead them away from liberty: 

> ...the LP itself has its own government.  Is it not also as susceptible to being overtaken by personal agendas and self-interest as any other organization, bureaucracy or government?  The underlying principles must not only be clearly defined, but also adhered to at every level of the organization.  Ends can never justify means, if the means themselves violate the underlying principles.

	Those thoughts are very much in synch with some of the themes I've stressed during my time on the LNC.

If we believe in transparency in government, we should practice it in our own governance. 
If we believe in decentralism of power in government, we should practice it in our own governance. 
If we believe in making government more accountable to the governed, then we should practice it in our own governance.


On Sep 4, 2017, at 8:36 AM, Steve and Pat Hall wrote:

> Mr. Sarwark, and members of the Libertarian Party leadership,
> 
> In my opinion, the Libertarian Party is disjointed, and is thus ineffective.  There are (at least) two underlying issues: (1) in Politics, one of the main tactics is to keep the people divided against one another, which allows those in charge to stay in power [and all organizations become politicized, even the LP]; and, (2) so many people do not act on principles, rather they make decisions based on a “case by case” basis, and rationalize violations of their own supposed “principles” because “the ends justify the means”.  So I will take the liberty of offering some constructive criticism:
> 
> I am 69 years old; I earned a BBA in Economics in my 30’s and continued to study politics and economics in earnest for 35 years.  I used to consider myself a "conservative Republican”, even though I had some problems with some of their “planks".  Like most people, I believed that the only choice was to be a Democrat or a Republican . . . until I read Larry Elder’s book, The Ten Things You Can’t Say in America.  That was the first time that I got an insight into libertarianism.  My reaction was, “Wow - that is what I am, a libertarian!”   And that propelled me into an enthusiastic quest for more understanding.
> 
> I joined the Libertarian Party.  I attended Freedom Fest in Las Vegas.  I went to Libertarian Party events in Seattle and Denver (in my home State of Idaho, the Libertarian Party was torn apart by infighting; it looks like we are not even part of a “region").  I wrote two books, with a clear libertarian bias.
> 
> Thus in my own mind, I believe that I am “libertarian" through and through.  But I have long since dropped out of the Libertarian Party.  The reason is straightforward:  the Party does not reflect my views; and as importantly, the Party does not seem to even want to know my views.  It appears to me that the LP fuels, rather than quells, the divides between the “wings” of the liberty movement.  Like America itself, the emphasis seems to be on taking sides, rather than finding common ground.  Principles have become secondary to political appeasement and underlying agendas.
> 
> It is sad, not so much for me and my wife of 50 years, but for our kids and grandkids.  I see the "Idea of America" as terminally ill.  And the country with it, barring a seismic shift (aka a miracle).  The current ballyhoo over fascism is nonsense; at the end of the day, what is the difference between Communism and Fascism?  Between a dictator and a king?  It’s all semantics.  There are only two kinds of government:  the Laws of Rulers (the four just mentioned are examples).  Or, the Rule of Law.
> 
> Some believe in anarchy as the way to enjoy a functioning, free society.  But that is like saying if all people were good, all of the time, then we would all get along; it’s no different, in my opinion, than the hippie commune-ists of the 60’s (nor more sustainable; in fact, the communes inevitably became “ruled” by a charismatic leader, who both dictated and enforced the laws).  
> 
> I believe that what libertarians, anarchist or otherwise, are really saying is that in a free society, the citizens agree that everyone can do as they please, so long as they are not hurting others or taking their stuff.  (That is, in fact, the "law of the land” in that society - in other words, that principle, made law, applies to everyone.)  I simply cannot believe that an anarchy will long survive - any more than the communes of the 60’s - because some folks within the society will break the law; they will hurt one another and steal.  Moreover, certain citizens of that society, as well as groups/countries on the outside, will see the anarchy as an opportunity take over, by force.  So some “government” of some kind is required, both for defense and for enforcement of that underlying rule of law.  It seems to me that has been proven throughout our entire human experience.  And the folks with the biggest guns always prevail.  
> 
> But does that mean that the folks who believe in anarchy as a means to liberty are not  “libertarian”?  I do not believe that, either; I welcome and appreciate their rationale and their arguments; they help us think through the options for a free society.   (And what if they are right?)
> 
> Additionally, libertarianism is based on the idea of private property, thus the establishment and definition of private property, and the ability to contract, is also critical.  There has to exist some way to enforce contracts when they are violated, which again requires some sort of “government”.  The structure of that government is important, of course; it must be clearly defined and severely limited lest it morph into the Laws of Rulers (which is the nature of all bureaucracies and governments, if left unchecked - America is a prime example).
> 
> It seems to me that the rifts in the LP are not over that basic principle (which is essentially the “golden rule”) but are rather about how to define “government" in the first place, and then what degree of participation is voluntary, and to what extent its functions are “privatized”.  And, of course, about how much of that “government" is necessary in order for the society to survive; what powers it is to have; and how to restrain it from exercising powers that it is not granted.  (And those considerations are true whether you hire a private police/protection service, as one example, or a “public” one.)  
> 
> Thus are the disputes not a matter of “for or against” liberty, or, “in or out” of libertarianism?  Aren't they are a matter of degree, and how best we might actually get to that free society, given where we find ourselves today?  The stone-throwing and criticism of other people who believe in that same principle, with the same ultimate goal, is not just counter-productive, it is disdainful, and is very discouraging to others who might otherwise support the principles of liberty.
> 
> My initial awakening to libertarianism evoked in me a surge of enthusiasm; it was exciting and energizing.  I wanted to share it with everyone!  I began a series of letters to my kids and grandkids, which eventually evolved into two books.  But that enthusiasm could not last.  The libertarian movement, I have slowly learned, is not a “movement” at all; it is a disjointed mixture of activists, educators, anarchists, idealists, philosophers, professional politicians, and Monday morning quarterbacks.  Those who want all or nothing - no government at all - are at odds with those who see it as a journey, one step at a time.  Folks who accept America’s interventionism and imperialism as the way to “protect America" contradict those who believe in non-aggression.  One would think that it would be the Libertarian Party that would bring the liberty-lovers together; but they have not, nor do they appear to want to.
> 
> My criticism of the LP, and my disappointment in it, is best illustrated by your current attacks on the Mises organization and Tom Woods.  How in the world is that productive?  (Let alone justified?)  Libertarians are already a minority as a political power; why divide us even further?  One can only surmise that this is politically motivated, not principle driven.  And we must assume that you, Mr. Sarwark, are supported in these kind of attacks by the LP leadership, and represent the Party itself.  
> 
> Judging by the potshots and infighting, I can only wonder if I am even qualified to call myself a libertarian.
> 
> Here is the “constructive” part of my criticism:  if we really care about having a libertarian society - and if our purported belief in liberty is not just a tool for a personal agenda - then we must actively and intentionally seek to find the common ground, and then the ends, methods, means, and activities that promote the underlying principle, move us toward it.  Regardless of labels.  The idea of “no government” is a lofty ideal.  Yet the LP itself has its own government.  Is it not also as susceptible to being overtaken by personal agendas and self-interest as any other organization, bureaucracy or government?  The underlying principles must not only be clearly defined, but also adhered to at every level of the organization.  Ends can never justify means, if the means themselves violate the underlying principles.
> 
> When I discovered the concept of libertarianism, I was hopeful about the concept of saving America from the Laws of Rulers, about moving toward a more-and-more libertarian country in the coming generations (the basic message of my books).  I thought that Ron Paul and Tom Woods were correct in their belief that with education, people would come around to the concept of liberty; after all, that was my own experience.  But I have become more and more cynical; it appears that Doug Casey may be correct, that it is simply too late.  That cynicism, that hopelessness - perhaps that reality - was driven by the realization that if the Libertarian Party itself cannot even bring libertarians together - and is in fact attacking other great libertarians like Woods and Mises - how can we expect “libertarianism" to have any real impact or influence?
> 
> Even if America, as a country, is so far down the rabbit hole that it is beyond redemption, and is doomed, then what of the future?  Even if we live through the collapse, even if States secede or subdivide, even if we escape totalitarianism and wind up with Casey’s phyles, even if we move to another country, is there not any agreement on what the new societies would look like, how they could succeed and survive?  In other words, is there a real, practical, and workable blueprint?  Or are we who claim to support a free society too caught up in labeling and throwing rocks and grandstanding and personal agendas to seriously consider the real future of liberty?  If so, that is especially disconcerting given that this country has moved steadily toward totalitarianism - a process that continues to accelerate - and that we are teetering on the brink.
> 
> Or maybe the criticism and name-calling is just a symptom of the inevitability of America's demise?  If our situation is truly hopeless, then maybe the arguments between the “good” libertarians and the “bad” libertarians are really no different than the battles between the “good” fascists (Antifa) and the “bad” fascists (neo Nazis).  Maybe it gives us something to do when faced with a hopeless situation?
> 
> But If that is not the case, if you believe that there is still hope, then you ought to be promoting the better outcomes and the benefits of liberty, not tearing down others who want the same thing.
> 
> You may “little note, nor long remember” these comments, and perhaps rightly so; I am but one unimportant individual.  But I suspect that my experience is not an isolated one; my guess is that many, many folks may get that little glimpse of what real liberty could be, see that glint of light behind the steel door, but quickly discredit and discard it when they realize how disjointed (and often disagreeable) its proponents are.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Steven Hall
> Meridian, Idaho

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20170905/3eb61e64/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list