Why I DON'T Support the Libertarian Party

          RECENTLY, the Libertarian Party of the United States posted a tweet commenting on the ongoing controversy surrounding Roe v. Wade. What they said was, “Whether it is a choice about vaccines or reproduction, healthcare decisions belong between an individual and their doctor — not the government.” Attached to this tweet is an image of the mascots of the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties (the donkey, elephant, and porcupine, respectively) titled “Bodily Autonomy”. With regards to this issue the Democrats are caricatured as believing “You own your uterus but not your immune system,” the Republicans as believing “You own your immune system but not your uterus,” and the Libertarians as believing “You own yourself.”

          The Party did not receive many positive responses, however. The anarcho-capitalist Internet commentator LiquidZulu replied, “Do hitman-hiring decisions also belong solely between the hitman and their client?” The Mises Caucus of the Kentucky Libertarian Party affirmed that “[they] are deleting that abortion plank[,]” presumably when they gain power in the Party. Then, a random individual commented that, “Except in an abortion, it’s the baby’s body that gets rekt…sooooooo.”

          I myself did not give the Libertarian Party much amity for their tweet. My own response was that their tweet was “exhibit 36” as to why I did not support the Libertarian Party. This gave me an idea, however. I’ve long not supported the Libertarian Party, although I haven’t entirely detailed this or made this clear on Twitter/in other articles. Having finally made my position clear publicly, I thought it wouldn’t hurt and would give me something to do if I dedicated an article to explaining why I do not support the Libertarian Party.

          One of the main reasons is that the Libertarian Party is no longer a party of libertarianism, but rather classical liberalism or regime libertarianism. Neither ideology is true libertarianism, they’re close for sure, but they are not true in the sense that while promoting personal freedom and economic liberty they do not satisfy one of Rothbard’s radical and famous planks of libertarianism:

“For libertarians regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical, whether red, white, blue, or brown.” (Rothbard 2006, p. 56)

          While the regime libertarian/liberal might respond that the State is indeed this, but a small government and good system of restrains minimizes its aggression, Rothbard already has disproven them through his refutations of constitutionalism and minarchism (see Rothbard 2009; cf. Block 2014). In short, libertarianism is anarcho-capitalism is libertarianism, and the Libertarian Party, by participating in the political process and not taking a firmly and honestly anarchist position, compromises libertarianism.

          Their compromising is another reason why I do not like them. Take their view on abortion. As represented by their tweet that started all this, they are promoting themselves as a compromise between the two parties. But this is not what (again, true) libertarianism is about. Libertarianism is an alternative, an alternative to the fiat demands of government, the merciless arbitrariness of the electoral system, the systemic violations of private property, and all the other sins of the State. It is not a compromise between absolute private property and the fiat property that exists under the vestiges of the State.

Their compromise on abortion is an affront to true libertarian principles. The most consistent and detailed applications of libertarian theory of abortion result in one of two positions: evictionism, wherein the removal of (but not murder of) the infant is permitted (and since viability does not occur until the third trimester this restricts the majority of abortions), and pro-life libertarianism. This is not a compromise between pro-choice liberalism and pro-life conservatism, but an entirely independent alternative built from libertarian principles (yes, that sentiment applies even to seemingly synonymous “pro-life libertarianism”). The devolution of the Libertarian Party into compromisarianism from libertarianism, or even classical liberalism, is one of their biggest faults.

The third, final, and probably the most significant issue I have with the Libertarian Party is its participation in the political system to begin with. Sharing common ground with agorists, and also a number of anarcho-capitalists, I despise voting and participating in elections. As Hoppe has put it, democracy is a competition in bads, and so in democratic elections all one is doing is directing the “political market” towards the selection of shrewder and shrewder demagogues. If libertarians are supposed to view the State as evil, and all its involuntary and coercive activities as similarly immoral, why participate in any of them?

As George H. Smith argued, “Should the wise maxim often quoted by libertarians, ‘Power corrupts,’ now be amended to read, ‘Power corrupts – unless you are a libertarian?’ It is not clear to me why libertarians are any less susceptible to the temptations of power than the ordinary mortal.” This has been made clear for decades by public choice theory, i.e., that politicians behave in certain ways due to the incentives and mechanics of civil service (see Higgs 1997). I do not think there is a logical basis for libertarians participating in government if at the same time advocating for its dissolution (and, since the LP doesn’t advocate for that I refer to my first objection, that it doesn't represent true libertarianism).

I think organizations such as the Mises Institute, Molinari Institute, Free State Project, Property and Freedom Society, Advocates For Self-Government, and others do all that is needed, namely advocating, teaching, and defending libertarian/anti-statist principles. I also borrow from the Anabaptists on this matter (see Hatfield 2009 and Lewis 2008), as a Christian anarchist, agreeing that voting is a problematic and coercive action that is at odds with Christian ethics.

The Libertarian Party, then, should not exist, and should simply transform itself into one of various other outlets for the teaching and defense of libertarian principles, like the aforementioned institutions. Voting is no civic duty, and this is mere statist propaganda. For more on the libertarian case against voting see this, this, and this.

So, to summarize, my opposition to the Libertarian Party comes down to three main pillars. First, the Libertarian Party are not true libertarians, they are classical liberals at most and regime libertarians at worst. Second, they are presenting themselves as a compromise between the powers-that-be, not a radical pro-liberty alternative to either. Third, and most importantly, it is invariably at odds with libertarian theory to be a voter and politician, meaning the objectives of the Party are inherently questionable. The Party’s recent, and continued, embarrassing displays on Twitter do nothing but validate – in my mind – this opposition to its existence.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Conquest's Second Law and Libertarianism

  IN political science there is a concept known as “Conquest’s laws of politics.” It is named after Robert Conquest, a conservative British historian best known for his books on the Soviet Union . Similar to Asimov’s “Three Laws of Robotics,” Conquest’s laws define three principles of political action that can be considered reliably accurate. These three laws are: Everyone is conservative about what he knows best. Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing. The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic organization is to assume that is controlled by a cabal of its enemies. All these laws have interesting implications and can be looked at one by one. However, today the one law that I want us to focus on in particular is the second law, that, “Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.” It certainly sounds interesting and can have broad implications for political strategy. For libertarians in part
Read more

Active Measures: Part I, "Demoralization"

  This is the first of a planned three-part series that will focus on analyzing the origins, perpetrators, and fulfillment of Soviet-style subversive “active measures” in the United States and elsewhere in the West. Because of the amount of information that there is to talk about, owing to the enormity of data that is revealed through thorough research of this subject, this multi-volume approach has been taken. This first installment is focused on the strategy of “demoralization”.             BACK in the 1980s a now-infamous interview was hosted by George E. Griffin with KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov. This interview, little known to the general public, exposed the four-part strategy by which the Soviet KGB sought to subvert enemy nations. Many commentators, especially in recent years, have noted that these “active measures” that Bezmenov exposed are highly reminiscent of situations happening in contemporary society. Along with George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four , Bezmenov’s revelat
Read more

Divide and Conquer

THE  political situation in America is pretty awful, and has been for probably up to a decade (although, I’d argue it has always been bad, and has only become obvious in recent years). Every month, every week, every day even, we must watch on in an ashamed stupor as the assembly of people elected to direct with steadfast loyalty our country act like toddlers left alone in a classroom. A simply net positive GDP growth means nothing, because the cogs of the machine have grown greasy and old. As a great exhibit of the condition of our country, recent statistics show a very legitimate desire for secession among certain Americans. This is not good, it is as simple as that. Every nation-state, every civil society, is a human experiment. Locke, who I oft differ to, saw civil society as the consensual assembly of humans under common principles (Locke 2015, p. 77). The State, therefore, is consequently obliged to be sensitive of and accommodating to the human condition; not sensitive or acco
Read more