Liberals and Libertarians | Glen Raphael's World | Feedback
Note: Huben has been re-editing his document, so some of the paragraph numbers below may by now be out-of-date. But the remarks are still generally valid; it hasn't changed that much.
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 01:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Willis B. Boyce
To: mrh@centerline.com
Subject: Non-Libertarian FAQ.
Mike,
I've read your Non-Libertarian FAQ, and I must say that although I was looking for some good points, I found it pretty weak. You seem to have spent too much time arguing with people who aren't really Libertarians, but simply government-haters, people who will hate the government no matter what it does. The positions which you attribute to Libertarians are more appropriately attributed t o anarchists. Most Libertarians would agree that the government has the right to govern. Most Libertarions would *disagree* that the government has the right to redistribute wealth, control speech, protect one from oneself, engage in military adventurism/imperialism outside the borders of the country, preach morality, etc.
I take exception to the fact that as the document, which purports to be an objective look at Libertarianism, progresses, your statements become meaner and uglier, culminating in point 32, which is simply a mockery of The Libertarian Party, containing no information whatsoever, and point 33, which accuses Libertarians of being in league with Stalin and Hitler, after which you devote the rest of the piece to petty attacks on quotes attributed to Libertarians. I'm sure that people, Libertarians and others alike, would take your writings far more seriously if you left your hostility at home.
I'll detail my counterpoints to your points in the following paragraph. Please note that I have read nearly everything published by The Libertarian Party. I have not, however, paid any attention to the fanatics and the government-haters.
1. Neither the 1994 Platform nor the 1992 Program, as published by The Libertarian Party, mention the "founders," or even the Constitution itself. A true Libertarian doesn't *care* what the "founders" thought. Some people may characterize the founders as Libertarians, but that doesn't change the position of The Libertarian Party.
2. The Libertarian Party doesn't seek justification in the Constitution. The 1994 Platform mentions that "the right to keep and bear arms" appears in the Bill of Rights, but then explicitly states that The LP is in agreement with the idea, i.e., the Platform does *not* state that The LP believes in the right to keep and bear arms *because* it's in the Bill of Rights. As further argument, The LP opposes the income tax, which is clearly constitutional. (There are probably those who would say that the amended Constitution isn't the "real" Constitution, but conveniently forget that the Bill of Rights is a collection of amendments.)
3. Neither the 1994 Platform nor the 1992 Program, as published by The Libertarian Party, mention the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing to indicate that anyone who is actively involved in The LP views the Declaration as anything but a 220-year-old letter to King George. The idea that the Declaration is a legal document is something put forth by ultra-conservative fanatics.
4. Simply because there are established organizations which support freedom and rights doesn't mean that there is no room for any other organization which promotes freedom and rights. The ACLU in particular isn't a useful comparison to The LP because the ACLU does not nominate candidates for political office or otherwise seriously attempt to participate in the political process.
5-19. A long serious of arguments which can be condensed into a single point: "If you don't like the idea of the government claiming part ownership of your property, you're free to leave the country." However, you mention that a person who doesn't like the "social contract" has four choices, one of which is "tolerate the social contract, and perhaps try to amend it." What do you think that The Libertarian Party is trying to do? Just as you believe that people are bound by a "social contract" with the government, Libertarians believe that they aren't. The difference is that while you want to bind others to your idea of the "social contract," Libertarians don't want to bind anybody at all. And they are doing just what you recommend: tolerating the contract while working to amend it. Libertarians are *not* lawbreakers.
20. The LP has always favored the free-market purchase of services formerly provided by the government with funds saved by a reduction in taxation. The LP believes that placing services formerly provided by the government into the private sector will inrease competitio n and lower costs for all involved. No thinking Libertarian would argue that if taation were eliminated, we'd all be four times as rich; that's simply ridiculous. Such arguments are made by people with no grasp on reality, let alone politics. Please do not put words into the mouth of The LP.
21. Your arguments that local government provided the same level of service 150 years ago as the federal government does today simply doesn't hold water. There was no Social Security (which consumes 1/3 of the annual budget) 150 years ago. There was no CIA at the federal or local level, nor was there an NSA, an FBI, an EPA, an FDA, an FCC, an FAA, a WPA, a TVA, etc. In fact, the idea of big government didn't come with Industrialization or the invention of the service economy. It arrived with FDR and The New Deal. If you don't believe that, you need to read some history. I've read a lot. The New Deal ushered in an era in which people expected the government to "fix" what was "wrong" with society--an era which continues today. All that fixing takes a lot of money. The Libertarian position is that the fixes have evolved into the problems.
22. Huh?
23. This argument seems to imply that because most people want to control the lives of others, that they should be permitted to do so. If that is true, then it must also be true that if mo st people want to steal, that they should also be permitted to do so. The Libertarian position is that the government should exist to protected people *from* those who would control others' lives. A Libertarian government would have just as much use for "human perfection" as our existing government: none. People who insisted on violating the liberty of others--violating the *law*--would be put in jail, just as people who violate the law are now.
The points which follow, as I mention before, contain less and less substance, and more and more open hostility. I can see no point in refuting your points regarding Dred Scott and such when you aren't addressing Libertarian sentiments at all, but instead the sentiments of one or two self-labeled "Libertarians" on Usenet. You may state in turn that those are *exactly* the "Libertarians" you are targeting, but then why do you use point 32 to criticize The Libertarian Party? If you're going to belittle The LP, you should at least address *their* issues.
Hopefully you will see fit to revise your document, removing some of the thinly veiled hatred, and convert it into a real tool for political discussion.
--
Willis B. Boyce
finger wboyce@greenleaf.gfr.com for PGP public key
http://www.gfr.com/~wboyce
vote Libertarian! http://www.lp.org/lp/