Skip to main content

No Room in the Tent

Adding to the Libertarian tent in Scott Lazarowitz’s excellent LRC piece  and “… because the “libertarianism” argument seems to be such a hot-button issue at this time, I instead want to add my two-cents worth on that issue.”….

I’ll see those two cents and raise ya two!

Among the many worthy statements made, this paragraph crystallizes the essential element missing from the “Me,Too”-ism currently buzzing around all around Libertarianism-ville.

There is no compromise, no middle ground between statism and libertarianism. “Limited government” is not libertarian and isn’t even possible. In my view, libertarianism has no role for the State, as the State is a territorial monopoly ruler over people who did not consent to its rule. The relationship between the rulers and the ruled is contract-less and not voluntary. In a libertarian society, all relationships, associations and contracts would be voluntary. No coercion. The essence of the State is that its relationship with the people is involuntary. The State is nothing but an apparatus of coercion and aggression.

All the pundits who identified themselves as “Staunch Conservative” before Libertarian was cool, are now rushing to get out in front of the Attitudinal Sea-Change Parade as one of the Leaders because clear, principled libertarianism is resonating everywhere, looking pretty darn good compared to the butt-ugly face of the Uniparty’s kudzu-like creeping fascism cum soft tyranny.


Being in agreement regarding “no role for the state” along with voluntary relationships and contracts, begs the follow-up question: why have a “State” at all? Indeed “limited government” is no different than “little bit pregnant”. Freedom, Liberty and Government have not, do not, and will not peacefully co-exist to the benefit of citizens for the simple reason: Government doesn’t work.

If “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results”, why the notion of a “political party” and running candidates? Should we contradict Washington’s edict: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force…”? Government in any form is Force. At its essence, Force is War: War against countries, people, drugs, -isms; ultimately, against the Individual. Government fulfills its "mission" by perfecting efficient tactics of War, to eliminate Liberty and Freedom and deny individuals their inalienable rights, not preserve and protect them. That looked good on paper but it remains contrary to the nature of Government.

When has Government, a devastating wrecking ball of Freedom and blood-thirsty killing machine ever done otherwise? Or name a period in human history more than several decades when any government – Monarchy, Oligarchy, Dictatorship, Democracy or so-called Constitutionally Limited Republic – was not engaged in taxing, regulating, suppressing, enslaving, wars of mass murder and grinding Liberty to dust? 

Sure, there were a few brief sparking moments – usually after the dead were buried - when the light from the “Torch of Freedom” burned a little longer than an ADHD lightening bug, but you could count on one hand (with fingers left over) the generations which lived it. It only took 15 years from the end of the Revolutionary War and 10 years before the ratification of the Constitution for John Adams to sign the “Alien and Sedition Acts”, hardly panegyrics to the ideals of the new Republic!

 Progressive liberals, establishment Republicans, tea party conservatives or newly-minted “Libertarians” cannot successfully debate, legislate or wet dream away the one word, the silver bullet, that kills dead any possibility of Freedom, Liberty, and the State living happily ever after in peaceful, productive coexistence. That word is Force, the polar opposite of Freedom.

As irrefutable as Washington’s pronouncement is Lord Acton’s postulation: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Power and Force are the conjoined twin spawn of Government. Add in Acton’s “active ingredient”, Corruption, and the sheer concept of Government as well as “governance” would bring any objective, logical reasoning Libertarian to realize he is, at heart, an anarchist. No form of government imposes itself via voluntary cooperation; government cannot function without oppression. Libertarianism is the half-way house, a way-point on the road to Anarchism.

Unfortunately, the enemies of Liberty have given Anarchy a bad name. In fact, it is the elimination of government that is the practical solution to tyranny and oppression because the State and Government are the parents of both.

Granted, the final chapter may not be paradisiac.

As Robert Higgs eloquently noted:

            Although I admit that the outcome in a stateless society will be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious in the extreme, I conjecture that the outcome in a society under a state will be worse, indeed much worse, because, first, the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state[8] and, second, by virtue of this control over the state's powerful engines of death and destruction, they will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state.[9] It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes, but it is stunningly worse when such criminally inclined individuals wield state powers… Only states can pose truly massive threats, and sooner or later the horrors with which they menace mankind invariably come to pass…”

Echoing Washington’s analogy to Government and fire, Gibbs writes:

“The lesson of the precautionary principle is plain: Because people are vile and corruptible, the state, which holds by far the greatest potential for harm and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst, is much too risky for anyone to justify its continuation. To tolerate it is not simply to play with fire, but to chance the total destruction of the human race.”

Returning to Mr.Lazarowitz piece: “While there is room in the libertarian “big tent” for “humanitarians” and “brutalists,” there is no room in libertarianism for statism.” To which I would add: just as there is no room in Liberty for the State.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Rush and Me

If you're an Accidental Tourist visiting from some other celestial rock, you don't know the significance of the passing of Rush Limbaugh (2/17/21). Look it up. You'll find everything from long-winded laudatory to wretchedly putrid bias. Political punditry has a way of bringing out the best in people and worst in scum. I should know - having frittered away 55 years of an otherwise exemplary life, making meters bounce and management cringe at some of America's Heritage radio stations in Major Markets across the country. Fortunately, audiences were more tolerant most of those pre-Cancel Culture years and the worst I suffered was the occasionally Breached Contract, otherwise known as Delayed Compensation (if you have decent attorneys - an oxymoron, I know). But I digress...My on-air relationship with El Rushbo is detailed highlighted in my book, " 50 Stories: 50 Years in Radio ." For the incurably inquisitive, here is the show from Atlanta, October 1990.   Profess

The Color of Crime

In the Age of BLM, here are some stats you may find informative - maybe even useful: • Black males age 18-35 years of age are only 1.8% of the U.S. population, yet have committed 52% of homicides from 1980-2008. Black males (all ages) are only 6% of the U.S. population, yet commit 46% of all violent crimes, and 50% of the gun homicides. If Blacks were removed from the equation, the U.S. gun homicide rate would be equal to Great Britain's, who have some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the world. • The Black homicide rate is 17 per 100,000, a rate over 9x that of the White rate, and comparable to some of those most murderous countries in the world. If the homicide rate for the U.S. were the White-only rate, the homicide rate would drop 84%, making the U.S. rate comparable to European countries. • According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2018 survey of criminal victimization, there were 593,598 interracial violent victimizations (ex

As Seen on Facebook

Despite its legions of drawbacks, Facebook is still the primary congregator of commentary that occasionally produces something compelling, informative, revealing, unique, insightful. You decide. Here's a recent post that - remarkably - drew little response.... "I'm by no means a tough talker or an advocate for violence when others avenues remain available, but we have to draw a line somewhere with respect to rights. If we believe that the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the rights of the people from an over-reaching government, then we have to believe that there comes a time to use it. There can be no clearer time then when the government attempts to strip rights from its citizens, even if by some esoteric legal argument they are able to justify it to themselves. If this passes and, by some measure, it is upheld by the Supreme Court, we will have to decide as citizens if we're going to use our 2nd Amendment rights as intended or give them up and comply. The decisi