It’s My Party and I’ll Cry If I Want To
Posted by Thomas L. Knapp on May 4, 2009 in Commentary • 6 commentsQuestion: When does a libertarian call for bigger government?
Answer: Never.
Libertarianism persists as a phenomenon despite more schisms than you can shake a stick at: Anarchist versus minarchist, deontological versus consequentialist, purist versus pragmatist, radical versus reformer, political versus anti-political … you name it, there’s a schism for it.
What gives the libertarian movement such coherence as it possesses is that libertarians support “less state power.” Some libertarians support a little less state power, some libertarians support a lot less state power, and some libertarians support no state power — no state — at all.
What libertarians don’t support is more state power. Ever. Even in the biggest libertarian tent, that’s the dividing line: Less is libertarian, more isn’t.
So, when the Libertarian Party issues a press release calling on the US government to exercise more power than it does at present — more power than even Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano thinks is called for — something is obviously rotten in the state of Denmark. Or, rather, something’s rotten in Suite 200 of the Watergate, where the LP keeps its national headquarters.
Disclaimer: The Center for a Stateless Society is an anarchist, anti-political organization. The Libertarian Party is a political organization with members from across the nominally libertarian portion of the philosophical spectrum. There’s no formal cross-affiliation between the two, and in fact some members of each organization would argue that the other organization’s existence damages the movement. I’m in the often (especially so at this particular moment) uncomfortable position of being affiliated with both organizations.
In this case, it’s difficult to dispute the argument that the LP has crossed the line from libertarian advocacy to anti-libertarian advocacy. Its publicly stated position on “securing the borders” to combat, of all things, the swine flu “pandemic” (a phenomenon most associated with hysteria, not epidemiology) fails even the most broad-spectrum litmus test of libertarianism.
The unfortunate reality is that when one institution associated with the libertarian movement goes rogue in this manner, other such institutions are expected to respond. Silence is presumed to constitute assent, and that presumed assent can quickly taint public understanding of what our movement is all about.
Moreover, there are lessons to be learned from this incident. The press release is a symptom. The Libertarian Party’s systemic failure to uphold its own most basic principles is the disease … and it’s a contagious disease for which understanding is the vaccine.
Last year, the Libertarian Party held its biennial national convention in Denver, Colorado. At that convention, it adopted a new platform, including the following plank on Free Trade and Migration:
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
The portion of the plank following the word “however” is the portion used to justify the LP’s call for more state power on the border. It comes at the end of the plank. It constitutes only one of the plank’s four sentences. And it constitutes a minor exception to the positions outlined in the plank.
Since that plank was adopted, the LP has issued two press releases on immigration. One of those releases took a libertarian position (against the construction of a “border fence”), but prominently mentioned the “exceptions clause.” The other — this one — centered entirely around the “exceptions clause.”
That clause, like a few others in the platform, was included and adopted for the purpose of obtaining buy-in from “centrist” members of the LP — those who want “a little less government than we have now” and labor under a constant compulsion to “mainstream” the party by moving it closer to the existing political center.
That’s a dangerous compulsion. The libertarian movement — in both its political and anti-political manifestations — isn’t here to move to the center, it’s here to move the center. This incident graphically illustrates what happens when we confuse the two: Lean toward the center, and you’re likely to find yourself pulled right over the center line into enemy territory before you know what’s happening.
The jury is still out on whether political means can serve libertarian ends. This week’s evidence isn’t promising. If the Libertarian Party continues to promote anti-libertarianism, one hopes its members will act honestly — and change its name.
> Less is libertarian
Thanks for the endorsement.
The exception should never have been approved by the delegates and I voted against it in Denver. I wouldn’t describe those wanting that clause as “centrists,” as they are a minority, but with planks requiring 2/3 support, that minority was able to insist on it to get an immigration plank at all. It was a judgment call to let them have their way, and this press release shows it was a mistake.
Mercifully, this is probably the worst plank in the current platform from a libertarian standpoint, but it shows that compromises with conservative-libertarians cannot be allowed. Next time, NO plank is best if they still represent more than 1/3 of the party, but more important is to replace the current national regime with mainstream libertarians so that the national office isn’t allowed to be so far from the membership. If we have the same leadership in 2010, the party is over.
Oh, stop cheering, Brad!
I have two thoughts on this issue.
I would not call people who are anti-immigration for either law and order or xenophobic reasons “Centrists.” Such people are right-wing LINOs who should be voting Republican.
That being said, if the H1M1 flu were as lethal as it could have been (but seems to not be now), it is not really a hard call to call for either border restrictions or out and out quarenteens. Had the lethal amino acid been present in the virus measures would be called for to make it possible for everyone to stay home – including mandating a suspension of payments to creditors so no one has the motivation to cheat.
Liberty is not a suicide pact. It is an agreement to allow others freedom – but making another person sick does not count as a freedom in my book (any more than allowing a practicing and inebriated alcoholic to drive unmolested by the state – preferably such an individual would be hospitalized in both cases).
> making another person sick does not
> count as a freedom in my book
I certainly agree that we have a right to restrict individuals who actually pose a threat. Belonging to an enormous group some tiny percentage of which pose a threat doesn’t cut it.
I suspect I do think “liberty is a suicide pact,” though — at least in the sense that it’s better to suffer injustice than to commit it.
I’ve suggested before that the Libertarian Party should change its name to the Market Liberal Party.
“Liberty is not a suicide pact.”
Right; liberty is not a suicide pact; it’s not /any/ pact. It’s not an agreement between parties; it’s the absence of an agreement.
It’s the absence of coercion by the State or others: it’s freedom! the freedom to defend oneself against coercion, to enter into agreements voluntarily. Is our “agreement” with the State voluntary?
The State will never shrink by itself; it will never give up its power, which is power over us, without a mighty fight. We must /never/ give it /more/ power; that’s the bright line.
Even our beautiful, supremely well-thought-out U.S. Constitution is not proof against the rapacity of today’s politicians and apparently neither is the present-day LP.
Two immediate thoughts.
The first one consists of one word, four letters: LINO.
The second thought is that this recent anti-libertarian press release only helps the agorist case that real change cannot come from party involvment. I don’t know if I’ve come to that conclusion myself, but this recent episode nevertheless has me extremely depressed about the nature of the LP. The only reason the LP is as relevant as it is now is that it has, up until 2008, promoted radical change—nobody would ever bother voting for a third party that’s very similar to the two Establishment parties since the chances of having one’s preferred Establishment party win are greater than the push created by the third party vote. Only by having a radical third party does the third party give voters a reason to support it instead of an Establishment party. This was Harry Browne’s argument, and I’ve yet to see a good argument to the contrary.
I think Mr. Antman is too kind. He uses the term “conservative-libertarians” where I would simply use the term “conservatives.”
I agree with Dr. Long (I assume that’s Dr. Long). As for Mr. Spangler’s suggestion, I think merely changing it to “Liberal Party” would suffice. All true liberals are market liberals, after all.
Yours,
Alex Peak