Average American: Brainwashed?

Big government is popular in the U.S. When describing this phenomenon, radical Libertarians are fond of using rhetoric suggesting that the average American has been "brainwashed" or duped. This is an unwise thing to do, because it is being disrespectful of the average American voter. The average person does not like being told that they have been brainwashed or duped. It is also rather ridiculous to suggest that if the average person had not been brainwashed or duped, then they would necessarily be raving, radical libertarians.

Anarchists in Denial

Libertarian Party members frequently rail against the state, yet most of them deny being anarchists. But if a person is hostile to “the state” and if a person cannot name a single useful purpose for the government, then that person is an anarchist. To deny this is either to be dishonest to the voters, or to be philosophically confused. I believe that these LP members suffer mainly from the latter.

American Civil Liberties Union

Libertarians have a love-hate relationship with the ACLU. One reason to love the ACLU is because it defends rights necessary for the maintenance of democracy and the prevention of abuses of government power. One reason to hate the ACLU is because it defends other, unrelated legal principles under the banner of "civil liberties". For example: The New York Civil Liberties Union recently filed a federal discrimination complaint against a Catholic school, charging that it unjustly fired an unmarried teacher for being pregnant. Laws which restrict personal freedom have nothing to do with "civil liberties" as this term was originally defined. After all, the ACLU would probably not volunteer to represent plaintiffs in lawsuits alleging contract fraud, trespass to property, or defamation of character. With regard to anti-discrimination laws related to private situations, one gets the sneaking suspicion that the ACLU would like to trick people into believing that these are part of the Bill of Rights.

Is It All Goldwater's Fault?

History Lesson: The Republican Party was always a socialist party. Unlike socialists who favored egalitarian socialism, Republicans favored inegalitarian socialism; the economy and culture were to be centralized, but the upper crust was to be preserved. In the early 1960's, Barry Goldwater presented an alternative image of the Republican Party, that of being America's party of small government. This misled many baby boomers. When later the Republican Party did not bring about small government, these baby boomers attributed this to a lack of adherence to principle - a false diagnosis. So when a small group of baby boomers formed the LP in 1971, they called it "the party of principle" and became obsessed with the idea of preserving adherence to principle. This false diagnosis prevents rational thinking when discussing strategy and public image. It leads to an irrational fear of the slippery slope, a total inability to think in terms of piecemeal reform, a refusal to take "yes" for an answer.

Prescription Drug Benefit

The Republicans tried to buy the votes of retirees by giving them a prescription drug benefit. But they also wished to avoid socialism. But when you try to have socialism and non-socialism at the same time, you wind up with one big mess. The seniors hate the structure of the new benefit. So, consequently, the Republicans are going to pay big time during the elections of the next few years. And deservedly so.

The National Cranberry Growers Association

The big difference between an organization such as the National Cranberry Growers Association and the Libertarian Party is that, unlike the LP members, the NCGA members, right from the beginning, accept the fact that they are a small minority, that they probably always will be a small minority, that their political strategy must take this into account, and that their primary reason for existence is not to convert the average person to an idealistic creed, but to GET WHAT THEY WANT.

I Remember The Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party demanded that everyone vote for its candidates and their revolutionary program all at once. The problem with this is that there are few, if any, voter blocs that are willing to vote for a revolutionary program led by a charismatic, revolutionary leader. An LP candidate, in order to advance even a little, would have to wins votes from several voter blocs: disaffected Republicans, certain Democrats, certain independents, certain non-voters, and certain moderate libertarians. These voter blocs demand modesty from the candidate and gradualism in the candidate’s proposals, things that LP candidates did not provide. LP candidates went off on a flight of fancy, believing that they would need to win the votes of the only voter bloc in existence, the American People, a bloc seething with libertarian beliefs and revolutionary fervor. The results were embarrassing, a one-way ticket to obscurity.

Is the Average Voter Libertarian?

The Libertarian Party is dominated by radical libertarians. One belief they tend to have is that the average American is a libertarian. Consequently, they feel they have no need to persuade, only to proclaim. They believe that the average American is opposed to socialism; therefore, the only thing they have to do to oppose something is to point out that it is socialist. When LP candidates receive very few votes, they ascribe this to restrictive ballot access laws, or lack of coverage by the media; never to disagreement with libertarian ideas or the advocacy of rapid change.

Democracy versus Unanimous Rule

A government will be based on one of three different types of rule: minority rule, majority rule ("democracy"), or unanimous rule. I support democracy. Please let me defend democracy against one criticism. Some people claim that democracy necessarily means “unlimited democracy”, something which, they believe, led to the mass killing of Stalin and Pol Pot. But these people are confusing democracy with an attempt to bring about unanimous rule. Unanimous rule is based on the idealistic, romantic notion that there can be created a social order in which nobody ever disagrees with or resents or hates any other person. Democracy, rather, is based on the belief that people will always disagree with each other or possibly resent or hate one another. Democracy is used as a way of coping peacefully with this.

A Natural Right to Property?

With regard to property, radical libertarians tend to follow the teaching of John Locke according to which if a person goes to previously unclaimed land and clears or cultivates it, he acquires a "right" to control the land forever and ever. Even his descendants can possibly control the land for an indefinite period. It is intimated that by this "mixing of labor" with the land, a mystical bond is created between the person and the land that cannot be broken by any other person or governmental authority. As a matter of fact, according to this belief, one of the sole purposes of government is to enforce a person's claim to land. This "first user" justification for private property is presented as a "natural" right, i.e. one that is not created by human beings and which cannot be altered by human beings. A moderate libertarian would not share this belief concerning the nature of property.

You might be a moderate libertarian . . .

You might be a moderate libertarian if you realize that the average person is not a libertarian, cannot be easily converted to libertarianism, and that this is a significant factor when choosing a political strategy.

Private Property Initiates Force

The cornerstone of radical libertarian thinking is the idea that private property does not initiate force. Consequently, the radical libertarian believes that he or she can simultaneously believe in private property while opposing the initiation of force. But since private property does in fact initiate force, radical libertarianism must either be rejected or at least be grounded on some other principle.