| Libertarians Annoy Me |
| Well, this week at the Institute has been the Hoppe seminar. It's pretty good overall, but I can't say I've really learned much. If you want to know all the useful information from the seminar, read Democracy: the God that Failed. Even if you don't want to know, it's still a good book. Go read it.
And Chapter 10, specifically, is required reading for any conservatives who may be reading. ("Lifestyle libertarians" as well.) Anyway, something I HAVE discovered this week... Okay, technically, it's been reinforced this week... is this: Libertarians annoy me. Don't get me wrong, I love libertarianism. In fact, I believe in it. A world without a coercive State would be great. But Libertarians give libertarianism a bad name. Example: a couple of the attendees for the seminar are Libertarian Party National Convention delegates. They came on Monday, and ALL WEEK they have been talking about the convention. The one still maintains that Ruso would have been a better candidate, and the other says that she's glad the guy that got it did. They don't seem to realize... IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO THE LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE IS! THEY WON'T WIN! Oh, and the woman concedes this, as does the guy. Then they go on about how it's really about education... blah, blah, blah. Guess what... If you want to educate people, you do something very counterintuitive... You get involved in EDUCATION, not POLITICS. So, for today's entry, I've decided to offer a practical libertarian approach to politics that I advocate. In order to do this, I first must offer a philosphy of politics. What is politics, and what can it properly be used for? Simply put, politics is the process by which a group seeks to gain control of the State apparatus to pursue it's agenda. Seeking to use politics as a means for anything else ("making a statement" or the like) is naturally improper. It is natural to use the most appropriate tool for any particular end. Politics is an inappropriate tool for education, as there are more appropriate tools available (publishing books and pamphlets, teaching, lecturing, hosting radio and television shows). Politics is an inappropriate tool for "statement making" (which "Vote None of the Above" and intentional nonvoters would have us use it for), as better tools are available (T-shirts, books, articles, websites, visible lifestyles). So, if politics is the process of gaining control of the State apparatus to achieve one's own agenda, how can libertarians do this in a practical way? Some principles: First, the strategy must be immediate and short-term. Second, it must have a decent chance for success. These principles immediately defeat the idea of a separate Libertarian Party. Even if you get up to 5% of the vote, it is still just a waste. Two plans are valid, that I can think of. 1) Move to a more free area. This is the idea of the Free State Project. Basically, move to the area that is as free as available, and then move it even further in the direction that it already leans. This is viable, as it requires just a "small push" in policy rather than a policy reversal. I also think a move to Hong Kong would be viable for achieving freedom. But, this has grimmer long term prospects as, in 50 years, China is going to take it over, and there is great uncertainty regarding what will happen at that point. 2) Taking advantage of the Checks and Balances system. Our Founders understood that, to have ANY hope of limited government (and honestly, not much), governmental power must be divided and balanced against each other. The problem we have run into, though, is that the branches of government AREN'T where power is invested. Instead, power is invested in the political parties. Thus, if one political party controls the 3 branches, government power is practically unlimited! The course then is clear. Split the 3 branches between the two parties. The question, of course, is "Who gets what?" In order to answer that question, we first have to remember something important: The Presidency and the Supreme Court are inseparably linked. Therefore, there are only TWO potential combinations: Republican Congress and Democratic President, or Democratic Congress and Republican President. There is no logical reason why one is better than the other, so I'm relying on a simple empirical study (the results are on my website that is linked from this page). Government spending grows slower with a Democratic President and Republican Congress than with a Republican President and Democratic Congress. A very crude measure of government power, to be sure. But, it is simple, and far better than the tax measure. (I'd like to study the growth of regulation, too, but that is a bit more difficult than I currently have time for.) So, that's what I advocate: Vote for a Democratic President and a Republican Congress. Now, some of you will probably freak out. "But Kerry is so into taxation!" Or, on the other side, "But the Republicans hate individual liberty!" Those things are true. But, here's the thing... Kerry loves taxation, and the Republicans don't. Thus, Congress doesn't pass any new taxes. Republicans hate individual liberty, but Kerry doesn't. Thus, violation of liberty doesn't grow. This is TRUE balance of power, my friends. It should be noted that this is for General Elections. Primaries work differently. In primaries, vote for the most EXTREME candidate in the party (or for the most libertarian, either is a valid approach). Going for the most extreme ensures that bipartisanship will be nigh impossible, and going for the most libertarian ensures that only those policies that are libertarian will be able to be bipartisan. Personally, I say take your pick. If some of us did each, it would probably be best. But, I'm not going to bother organizing that. Of course, this is just a voting strategy. What about libertarians that want to get more involved in politics? I have 3 words for you: resist the temptation. Fact is, being in power ruins good ideologies. Look at the last few years of Republican rule. The "small government" party has given us another cabinet department, an extension of socialized health care, a growth in education spending (which, if anything is traditionally NOT the realm of federal government, it's education), a HUGE growth in not just spending, but DEFICIT spending. Ladies and gents, this is NOT small government. But, what if you can't resist the temptation? Here's my advice: join either Republicans or Democrats. Specifically, join the dominant party in your area. Then, be a libertarian in that party. If you're thinking more "advocacy" than "candidacy", then be a radical libertarian. Be uncompromising. Compromising is the politicians' job. BUT, lay out your case in a rational way. We libs have the reputation for being crazy. Therefore, it is essential that we NOT be crazy. Present your radical ideas in such a calm, logical fashion that the people getting riled up about it look ridiculous. That's the goal. Show people that THEY'RE the crazy ones. There's the plan. Feel free to join me in it. Your help is certainly appreciated. |
| Home Philosophy Theology Economics and Finance Politics The Arts Costa Rica 2004 Fun Stuff Links My Blog E-mail Me |
 |