Within the Libertarian Party we don't have as much to worry about from coup d'états and power grabs, but rather our infighting is like an honest and good-faith difference of opinion amongst old friends. We don't like to air our dirty laundry to the public, but within the "big tent" Libertarian Party, where we may agree on 95% of everything worth talking about, that last 5% is a doozy. Minarchism vs. Anarchism.
As I first found out at the 2012 LP National Convention in Las Vegas, an understanding was reached at the 1974 Libertarian National Convention regarding this divisive issue. Known as the Dallas Accord, it was a agreement that would satisfy both the minarchist and anarchist factions within the LP by keeping the platform purposefully vague as to whether a state should exist at all. The thinking behind the truce was that all libertarians can agree our present government needs to get dramatically smaller, so let's join together in that common goal where we have that 95% agreement. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good. With a slogan like "Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom", each libertarian can define that minimum in his own mind, whether it be the minarchist "night watchmen state" or the true minimum of zero, a society that lacks an institution with a monopoly on aggressive violence. As more conservative and constitutional leaning libertarians have joined the party in the last decade, 2006 and 2008 saw a swing in the LP power structure in favor of the minarchists, where our choice of candidates and changes to our platform disenchanted many an-cap libertarians.
The 2012 national convention saw a partial reversal of this power swing, making it an excellent time for the party to have an honest conversation with itself and revisit the reasons the Dallas Accord was made in the first place. The Libertarian Party of Texas decided to host such a conversation in the form of a 2 on 2 debate this summer titled "The Ultimate Debate: Low Tax versus No Tax". Since there are some that don't want libertarians to say the word "anarchism", let alone acknowledge such forces exist within the party, "no taxes" was chosen as a suitable marketing substitute for the "A" word.
One of the participants on the "No Tax" side could not attend due to a family emergency, and I was asked to take his place 2 hours before the debate. "The show must go on".
Going into the debate I planned to focus on three lines of attack: the moral argument against taxation, the economic argument against taxation, and the naiveté of expecting "low taxes" to stay low in the long run. My opponents were very clever. They didn't challenge me that taxation was theft - they agreed. They didn't challenge me that our ultimate aim should be to get rid of taxes altogether, they agreed that was a worthwhile goal. One of my opponents didn't even resort to the "what about the roads" argument, he acknowledged that services like roads, defense, and arbitration could be supplied in a free and voluntary market.
So where did they get me? The real debate came down to this: do we take the principled or the practical route on this journey to freedom? A "no taxes" / anarcho-capitalist platform is not currently practical. Can I get elected on this platform? Could I get any bills passed? Are the American people ready to entertain these ideas, let alone vote for someone openly advocating them? I admit the answer is "no". This is not a question of beliefs, but one of tactics and strategy. More or less, the debate came down to, "Yes, I agree that "no taxes" is the correct moral choice, and I may even acknowledge it could work economically, but the people just aren't ready for it, so let's be reasonable or they won't take us seriously."
I didn't have a satisfactory answer to that line of attack during the debate, but now I offer a story followed by a few arguments for why libertarians should stick to our principled beliefs rather than water-down our platform or message to what is expedient or currently practical. In short, why we should live up to the name "The Party of Principle".
The Story of the Practical Abolitionist
It's pre-civil war America, and a small minority of people have come to a radical conclusion: the institution of slavery is wretched, indefensible, and morally wrong. They call themselves abolitionists, and their common goal is to end slavery. They have quite an uphill battle. Most of their countrymen do not agree with the abolitionists, either believing that slavery is a good thing (at least for the non-slaves) or that slavery is a necessary feature of this imperfect life. Like death and taxes, you may not like it, but there is no escaping it. The best you can hope for is to be on the right side of the whip.
We have established the abolitionist's common purpose, their goal, the vision that unites them and defines them as "abolitionists": the end of slavery. Now comes the question of tactics and strategy, which is a topic that divides the abolitionists into different camps. Some believe that education and persuasion is the right course of action. Abolitionists should write letters, give speeches, and utilize every non-coercive means available to spread their message and change the hearts of their brethren one at a time.
Other abolitionists are not patient enough for this line of thinking. Slavery is horrible, and people are suffering every day. There is simply no time to wait for a slow conversion of hearts and minds. Direct action must be taken to show these slave masters that we mean business. Run-away slaves should be protected and transported to free lands. Slave insurrections should be encouraged and nurtured. Every law that protects this evil institution should be resisted and openly broken. Anything less makes you nothing but an "Ivory Tower Abolitionist".
Another group of abolitionists recognize that their government's policy is a major contributor to the institution of slavery. Fugitive slave laws make it a crime to assist run-away slaves, even when their masters are in far away states. Since none of the major parties would risk going against the majority of the voters by taking a principled stand against slavery, this group wants to use the political mechanisms available to them to promote their cause. By creating the "Abolitionist Party" they can not only use this vehicle to educate their countrymen when they go to the polls, but it is conceivable that they could influence other parties as they take away votes, and perhaps even someday win and implement abolitionist policies to end slavery.
Within this politically oriented group there is another question that divides them: how do we craft our message? The "hardcore" and "radical" elements of the Abolitionist Party want to openly promote the complete end of slavery. They boldly proclaim, "No man should be owned as the property of another. The way to interact with each other is through commerce and voluntary association, not with chains and whips."
But another faction thinks otherwise. The people will never take our party seriously if we advocate completely ending slavery over-night. Yes, it's a worthwhile goal in the long run, but for the next election it would be disastrous! Number one, it would destroy the economy that is built upon the institution of slavery. Second, these slaves are not equipped with the responsibilities that freedom requires; who would take care of them? Or maybe taking care of them is the last thing to be worried about, maybe some will be angry and we'll have violent riots on our hands! "Don't get me wrong", says the practical abolitionist, "I'm with you on ending slavery, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. How about we endorse a measure to decrease slavery by 29%? Today we have slavery 7 days a week, so if we grant 2 days of freedom a week, say on Saturday and Sunday, then that would certainly be an improvement over current conditions. Once we have 2 days of freedom, we can work on a 3rd, 4th, etc. That is certainly a more practical strategy given current conditions, right?"
Lessons from the Practical Abolitionist
How do we respond to the practical abolitionist? With knowledge of how the past played itself out we can easily point out the error of his ways. In fact, knowing that the abolitionist cause ultimately succeeds makes this story a little silly. But the point isn't whether it's silly or not from our vantage point, but whether the parallel is a valid one. If so, then perhaps the practical elements of our own party will seem silly to our descendants in the utopic libertarian future.
With 20/20 hindsight vision, it's clear that the "practical abolitionist" is his own worst enemy by endorsing a goal of "reducing slavery by 29%". Given the conditions of that time, it may be more realistic to reduce slavery then to end it, but he is making the mistake of sacrificing the integrity of his long-term goal for a short-term win. He is playing into the hands of his opponents. Why should anyone else adopt the long term goal of "ending slavery completely" when even the so-called abolitionists seem to endorse slavery for 5 days a week? If slavery is a moral outrage, a crime against humanity, and a sin under god, then it must be totally wiped out. But if the group that is most publicly denouncing slavery is satisfied with a mere reduction in this great sin, then there must be some flaw in the arguments. Now the abolitionist brand has been compromised. As "purists" in the Libertarian Party have been known to point out, when we water down our message we lose twice, first by not winning the election, and second because we didn't even get our message out. By focusing too much on short-term wins in the political arena we forget about the long term goal of education and spreading the message. Without that the big political wins can never be accomplished.
While it might bring charges ranging from rudeness to being a proponent of "abolition purity tests", the impact of the "practical abolitionist" is so disastrous to the Abolitionist Party that it may be prudent to question the sincerity of his beliefs. After all, the practical abolitionist is confusing the abolitionist message in the minds of the voter, he is giving his opponents an easy line of attack with charges of hypocrisy and insincerity, and in some cases he even gives lip service to his enemy's propaganda rather than combating it when he uses it as the excuse for why people aren't ready for the "hard-core" message.
|We should always advocate breaking the chains of slavery, never to make the chains more comfortable. When we take the practical route we inadvertently advocate the very system we claim to fight.|
It gets even worse than this. If slavery is the evil that the abolitionists claim, why would they support any goal that would make slavery more tolerable to live under? The more obvious the evil is, the easier it will be to recruit new abolitionists to combat it. But if they are successful at "reducing slavery" then they will also be taking the wind out of the sails of their movement. Those that were at the edge of pledging their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" will now be placated with this bone thrown at them. From this perspective, the message of the practical abolitionist isn't so different from the deviously clever strategy of "Mr. Smith" in Larken Rose's parable of "The Jones Plantation".
This brings up the next point, what inspires people to join a movement? When you're up against the odds and looking to change hearts and minds, it's not prudency or the ability to compromise that converts people to your cause. From my own perspective I can say with confidence it was the opposite; I fell in love with the logical consistency and principled stance of the libertarian message. Here are people that when they say something, they really mean it. But beyond my personal anecdote, which may be a fluke, we can look to the man who has undoubtedly turned more people onto the libertarian message than anyone else, Dr. Ron Paul. When new converts speak of him, they don't get into the details of the libertarian message, they talk about his consistency. Here is a man that I can trust because he stands for something; he says what he believes and he believes what he says.
Back to the abolitionist analogy, we see the same respect for the man of principle and disgust with the compromisers and hypocrites. Say anything positive about the constitution or the libertarian beliefs of the founding fathers and the msm talking point is immediately relayed like a dog salivating to the ring of a bell: "The founders were hypocrites! A bunch of white men that talked about freedom and equality but owned slaves, why should I trust anything they said?"
And the worst part is… they are right. It was hypocritical to talk about freedom being an unalienable right granted by a creator from one side of your mouth while defending the ownership of slaves with the other. It is cognitive dissonance, doublethink, and schizophrenic thinking at its worst. Now the opponents of freedom can denigrate the idea completely. If these so-called founders didn't even believe in freedom, then surely no one did… well, except for someone named Lysander Spooner.
A tribute to this heroic man deserves its own post, but long story short, here is an abolitionist that walked the walk. He used every action available to him to further the abolitionist cause. He wrote pamphlets and books to spread the message, including the very influential "The Unconstitutionality of Slavery." He promoted plans for guerrilla warfare against slave holders and conspired with the "activist" members of his group to plot insurrections, even participating in one himself to free a fellow abolitionist. And most obviously, he didn't own any slaves. Today Lysander is a hero to principled libertarians. His writings did not debate the petty issues of his day, instead he wrote about broad principles of liberty and justice that transcend space and time; hence his legacy will live on forever. We want to be the Lysander Spooners of the freedom movement, not the "practical abolitionists".
|No one remembers the practical abolitionists, but Lysander's memes will live in the internet forever.|
The most compelling part of the practical argument for low taxes is painting the picture of what would happen to the less fortunate if we ended taxation tomorrow. Most obviously, goods and services that have been monopolized by the government would take time to transition to being run by the private sector. So think of all of the people dependent on these government services, including welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security. These programs are paid via taxation, so what happens to them if that revenue stream no longer has a gun to keep it flowing?
Going back to the slavery / abolitionist theme, it reminds me of the following quote from the great British abolitionist Thomas Macaulay:
"There is only one cure for evils which newly acquired freedom produces, and that cure is freedom. When a prisoner first leaves his cell, he cannot bear the light of day, he is unable to discriminate colors, or recognize faces. The remedy is to accustom him to the rays of the sun.This quote is the ultimate answer to the "practical abolitionist" of the 19th century and to his descendants within the Libertarian Party today. The flip side to freedom is responsibility, and the ability to take responsibility for your actions is a muscle that must be flexed from regular use or it will atrophy and decay to a shadow of its potential. The "practical abolitionist" says the people aren't ready for freedom, so let's be reasonable and promote practical measures. History tells us he was wrong. If Dr. Martin Luther King was correct, and “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”, then we should look to the optimist within and have confidence that in time our message will succeed. And when that day comes, we want to be standing on the right side of history. The next viral video shouldn't be "Ron Paul was Right" or "Peter Schiff was Right", but "The Libertarians were Right!"
The blaze of truth and liberty may at first dazzle and bewilder nations which have become half blind in the house of bondage. But let them gaze on, and they will soon be able to bear it,…
Many politicians of our time are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition, that no people out to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. If men are to wait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, they may indeed wait forever."