The Real Libertarian Platform—Abolition

CCTelander

Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2007
Messages
9,173
The Real Libertarian Platform—Abolition

Here's another good one by L. Neil Smith.

While I still believe that electoral politics is almost completely worthless as a means to advance the cause of liberty, if people are going to engage in it, IMO they ought at least to do so from a firm commitment to basic principles. That at least offers a real alternative to the usual scummy mess that is politics.

El Neil puts it very well below, I think.



The Real Libertarian Platform—Abolition
by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I got a message yesterday from an individual named Charles McGlawn, whom I wish to thank for taking the time and effort to write to me. I suspect that your letter, Chuck, is in response to my most recent article in L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise, in which I questioned the candidacy of ex-Governors Gary Johnson and William Weld. However, a couple of the things you say lead me to believe that you have me confused with somebody else, perhaps libertarian science fiction author and movie-maker J. Neil Schulman. For example, I have never seriously asked "What Would Gary Johnson Do?" about anything. I know all too well what a statist—or, if you insist, a mini-statist—like him would do when it comes to rights of individuals subject to his rule.

In answer to your implied question, "Mr. Smith" makes me feel old—but then, what the hell, I am old. Actually, I greatly prefer "Neil", or, as my regular readers sometimes call me "El Neil". Also, sadly; I have never once attended or addressed a Libertarian Supper Club; I haven't set foot in the People's Republic of California since 1987.

Chuck, please understand that there is no such thing as a "fair" tax. Is there a "fair" form of theft? Is there a "fair" form of slavery? If you take something from someone who wants to keep it, and insist that he labor for months to pay what you demand, you're a thief and a slaver, no matter how you dress it up. Forcing merchants to collect your protection-money for you is simply another form of slavery. There's nothing "fair" about it. And calling me a "purest" (you spelled it wrong—look it up) is not an argument that anybody decent makes. I think and act as consistently as I can with what I reason to be right.

So the real question here isn't what would I do, or what would you do, or what would anybody else do. The real question is, do we believe in libertarian principles, and do we stick by them, or not? If you say "not", then you're no libertarian, no matter what you claim. Principles, Chuck, are for when it's hard to follow them, not for when it's easy.

Look: this isn't brain science, it isn't rocket surgery. Real libertarianism is based on two, and only two, very simple ideas. The first is absolute ownership of your life and all the products of your life. The second is that nobody has a right to get something from you through the use of physical force or the threat of physical force. In the case of Gary Johnson's "fair" tax, the physical force is directed at those who make or sell us things. That's just as wrong, and harmful, as if the King's Men ransacked our houses for loot.

If libertarian principle is to mean anything at all, it must be observed absolutely consistently. It is not the obligation of a libertarian candidate to think up and promote newer and slicker ways of stealing from people. The great Milton Friedman invented tax- witholding, and regretted it the rest of his life. Taxes have been collected at gunpoint, or sword-point, or spear-point for something like ten thousand years. Don't you think it's long past time to find a better, more ethical basis on which to run civilization? Don't you think it's long past time for an organization with the Libertarian Party's pretensions to peace, freedom, progress, and prosperity to call for an end to this barbarism?

The first anti-slavery society (stick with me here, I'm not changing the subject) was created by Queen Isabella of Spain, when she was sickened at the horrible sight of the poor, bedraggled, disease-ridden Indians that Christopher Columbus dragged home from the New World. She couldn't have known that it would take 373 long years to bring the vile, brutalitarian practice of chattel slavery to an end. Nor can we know how long it will take to end taxation, or how many idiots and thugs will laugh at us along the way. Those are not legitimate reasons to give up the struggle. It's just simply something that we must endure in order to advance humanity to the next stage of civilization and enlightenment. We must shout now, for everybody to hear, "Izzy, we're coming to join you!"

Chuck, I reject each and every one of your proposed candidates; I don't give a hacker's damn how many votes you think they might get. Adolf Hitler won the election that gave him power over Germany. Roosevelt won every one of the elections that gave him power over our grandparents, I ask you, are your guys ready to end taxation, once and for all, along with the myriad other government excesses we struggle under? If not, to hell with them. Do you think I care what statist offices they held before this? I assure you, these are not qualifications, as far as I'm concerned. To repeat, taxation is theft; taxation is slavery; and, too, taxation is the fuel of war. Libertarians must promise the voting public to put an end to taxation in every one of its forms, or they must give up using the label "libertarian".

And resign themselves, in the wise words of the late, greatly-missed philosopher and educator Robert LeFevre, just to being some kind of funny-looking conservatives.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle876-20160612-02.html
 
I ask you, are your guys ready to end taxation, once and for all, along with the myriad other government excesses we struggle under? If not, to hell with them. Do you think I care what statist offices they held before this? I assure you, these are not qualifications, as far as I'm concerned.To repeat, taxation is theft; taxation is slavery; and, too, taxation is the fuel of war.

What about fees? :toady:
 
What about fees? :toady:


:D

"For example, I have never seriously asked "What Would Gary Johnson Do?" about anything. I know all too well what a statist—or, if you insist, a mini-statist—like him would do when it comes to rights of individuals subject to his rule."
 
[h=5]Statism is not just a cult - it's worse[/h] « on: October 25, 2014, 05:29:07 pm »
I have only been an abolitionist for a couple years. Prior to my conversion, I was a minarchist and had been for most of my life. Looking back, I now believe minarchism is a required stop for many of us on this journey. I would say “six months” is even too short for many— it is way too short to sort out the logical contradictions and argumentative fallacies that have been impregnated in our minds since we were children. Six months is far too short to fully deprogram our minds and reprogram our language. I would caution anyone who fell into this after six months to take it slow. Don’t become the firebrand zealot who burns out and grows cold with bitterness. You are weak and vulnerable. Statism is a cult, and exiting this cult requires slowly building and enduring new habits for your mind. Although “exit counselors” exist, I would caution everyone who is on this path, including recent arrivals to avoid being dependent on these people. Again, you are vulnerable, and the last thing you want to do is exit one cult to find yourself in another.

That being said, I was a minarchist for a long time, and I like to think I have been slowly moving towards abolitionism this entire time. My father was a John Birch Society member back when it was cool (and before it was compromised). From a rather young age, I read in Bastiat, de Tocqueville, Montesquieu, Hayek, Hazlitt, Sowell, Elder, and even the great Ron Paul. I supported Ron Paul’s presidential campaign and attended the early Tea Party events before they were hijacked by neo-conservatives. I spent my formative years, college, and professional life explaining my beliefs to curious friends, family members, and coworkers. All this time, I was gradually moving towards something, but I didn’t know what it was.

Looking back some more, I remember pretending to be comfortable and confident in my minarchism. I knew it was more moral and true than conservatism or progressivism, but there was something about it that left me wanting more. There was something about it that left unfinished or unsettled. I remember making the same old, tired logical contradictions and argumentative fallacies that statists would make only to a lesser degree. The Achilles heel I later discovered with defending minarchism was this: that accepting the smallest form of government as moral and true, is taken to a logical conclusion of maximizing government. A thing is the sum of its parts, and a large government is the sum of small incremental pieces of government. As some people around here like to say, the minarchist argument goes something like, “we think government is so inherently evil, that it should only be entrusted to do the few but most important things.” This is the problem, for if minarchy proves capable of doing a few very important things with violence, coercion, and fraud, then so should it be able to do more. I had instinctively known this my entire life that this wasn’t true, but I went through such amazing mental gymnastics to hide this weakness. As an armchair Austrian Economist, I can now reasonably argue that minarchy is as self-destructive as the largest of states.

Approximately two years ago, I discovered reddit. I discovered reddit/r/libertarian and from there, I discovered a libertarian “welcome pack” that included writings from someone I had only heard about but never fully engaged: Murray Rothbard. I picked up “For a new Liberty” and after reading it, concluded that Rothbard was touching upon something that went a level deeper than most libertarians would go. Someone in a thread once mentioned that this next level was called anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism and there was an entire sub-reddit dedicated to that. I remember someone had also suggested reading Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” as a primer. I picked up that book from Amazon and it had the same effect on me as Rothbard’s FANL. Somewhere on the way I watched Stefan Molyneux's videos and found them to be compelling, but I like to steer clear of his podcasts and fans.

This flashpoint took place within several weeks, and I remember exactly how I felt. It was like passing through a door into another realm where suddenly the universe, the world, and society made complete sense. But my conversion didn’t by all means stop there. I spent the next two years up to this very day reading every such book I can get my hands on, participating on forums like this, and watching podcasts of great speakers in the movement. I went through a long phase of asking those common questions, trying to understand how every minute aspect of society could function without government in the free market. I asked about the roads, I asked about Somalia, I asked about the space program and the internet. But the answers are all the same, and they’re all unassailable-- once you fully grasp the zero/non-aggression principle, you can use your creative imagination to come up with the free market alternative yourself. And just because you or I may lack the creativity to understand how to do something peacefully that the government does with violence in this very moment, does not validate the use of force against anyone to accomplish what we want to do. It’s that simple. But this simple truth remains so hard for most common people to get.

So here I am, looking back again. Larken Rose likes to say that Statism is a cult, and it is. But it’s much more than that. Statism is more than a cult because there is no single leader. It is a cult that is enforced and reinforced by the masses, self-perpetuating generation after generation and working its way through the fabric of society like a rogue software program or worm makes its way through the internet.

http://zerogov.com/forum/index.php?topic=3650.0
 
Abolition_of_Slavery_The_Glorious_1st_of_August_1838.jpg
 
What then is to be done? Friends of the slave, the question is not whether by our efforts we can abolish slavery, speedily or remotely for duty is ours, the result is with God; but whether we will go with the multitude to do evil, sell our birthright for a mess of pottage, cease to cry aloud and spare not, and remain in Babylon when the command of God is "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Let us stand in our lot, "and having done all, to stand." At least, a remnant shall be saved. Living or dying, defeated or victorious, be it ours to exclaim, "No compromise with slavery! Liberty for each, for all, forever! Man above all institutions! The supremacy of God over the whole earth!"
[h=5]William Lloyd Garrison[/h]
 
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation’s ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm, the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
Frederick Douglass

irony-anarchist-statist.jpg
 
Last edited:
The state — a judicial monopoly — must be recognized as the source of de-civilization: states do not create law and order; they destroy it. Families and households must be recognized as the source of civilization.
Hans Herman Hoppe
 
And resign themselves, in the wise words of the late, greatly-missed philosopher and educator Robert LeFevre, just to being some kind of funny-looking conservatives.

What's wrong with conservatives?

My main problem with conservatives has always been that they just don't follow their ideas to their logical conclusion, that they're not radical enough in their policies nor deep and drastic enough in their cuts [which universally are actually "cuts" that don't actually cut at all, they're just hyped as doing so by both sides of the aisle -- see for prominent examples the saga of Scott Walker (budget actually went up) and the spinning of Gary Johnson (budget went way up)]. To me, libertarians are like uber-conservatives: we agree with their rhetoric and their ideas, and we're consistent about it. We actually want to do it sometime in this lifetime. Huge tax cuts, now; huge spending cuts, now; a balanced budget, now!

So I think one can be simultaneously:

• A conservative
• A libertarian
• Not funny-looking
 
Last edited:
Here's another good one by L. Neil Smith.

While I still believe that electoral politics is almost completely worthless as a means to advance the cause of liberty, if people are going to engage in it, IMO they ought at least to do so from a firm commitment to basic principles. That at least offers a real alternative to the usual scummy mess that is politics.

El Neil puts it very well below, I think.





http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle876-20160612-02.html

Yep.

The Civil War didn't end slavery- it made everyone a slave.
 
Yep.

The Civil War didn't end slavery- it made everyone a slave.


Yep. People always seem to get hung up on the outward trappings of chattel slavery, and forget that underneath it all, at its core, slavery is really just an economice phenomenon. We just traded chattel slavery for a more efficient (from the standpoint of the slave owners) model where the slaves provide for their own upkeep and needs. Great deal for the slavemasters.
 
Another good one by l. Neil Smith. I suppose this one could deserve its own thread, but it seemed appropriate here too, so...


Electile Dysfunction
by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Is anybody else out there in Readerland as thoroughly sick and tired of this frigging election year—it feels a lot more like a century, now, doesn't it?—as I am? Does anybody doubt, any more than I do, that it will eventually arrive at some fair, legal, and quite properly democratic conclusion?

"I'm sorry—we are not programmed to respond in that area."

For all of my life—depressingly close to seven decades, now—there has never been any good political news, most particularly coming out of our highly-vaunted electoral system, which, for its entire history, seems to have attracted—and to have unerringly elevated—the very worst among us all, the most stultifyingly dumb-assed, the most terrifyingly insane, and the most bone-chillingly evil mutated specimens that the human species is capable of producing.

Your mileage may vary, but Hitler and his Nazi minions were the merest pikers, alongside this bloody-handed bunch. Richard Nixon was a Muppet, compared to what we've seen lately.

Consider Alexander Hamilton, America's original crony capitalist, who thought of the new nation he'd helped to establish as his own personal piggybank. Think of Grenville Dodge and George Armstrong Custer, consolidating the Lincolnian Empire in the South and expanding it into the West, carving, as Firesign Theater put it, a glorious future out of the American Indian. Remember Madeleine Albright, cheerfully reflecting on deliberately starving half a million Iraqi children to death. Remember Janet Reno talking blithely about having murdered the Branch Davidians.

This election year, they all appear—each of the sixteen or seventeen Republicanoids, half a dozen Democrats and a single, worn-out, threadbare socialist—to have suddenly poured out of a comical little car at the Barnum and Bailey circus. They all beg, each and every one of them, through their obscenely brainless behavior and their ridiculously surrealistic rhetoric, to be outfitted with big red noses, exactly like the characters on Big Comfy Couch.

"Clowns" is the only proper word for this bunch, although "killer clowns" might be more accurate and appropriate.

Unlike a lot of libertarians—unlike Robert LeFevre, for example, and my own daughter—I have never said there was anything inherently wrong with voting (LeFevre used to compare it to pulling a trigger.) It is possible to vote defensively, and remain within principle; any vote against Hillary Clinton, or one of the Bushes, is a good thing. The fact that there is nobody to vote for is a different matter. As Tammany Hall's Boss Tweed put it, "I don't give a damn who does the voting, as long as I get to do the nominating."

I recently saw former Congressman Ron Paul, the sweet, kindly old baby-doctor himself, the one and only politician actually qualified to have run for President in the 21st century, and to occupy the Oval Office, being quoted by one of the lunkheadedest right-wing media, saying that we ought to have a "None of the Above" alternative on every ballot and voting machine, as if that were some kind of new and startlingly revolutionary idea. Of course Ron would never make such an idiotic claim; genuine libertarians have been demanding that choice since their party was founded, forty-odd years ago. But what if real individualists, fed up to gagging with all the 2016 anti-abortion womb-slavery blather, all the Globular Warmuling guilt-mongery, could tell politicians, in effect, "Shut up, you religious cooties! None of you is fit to mow my lawn, let alone run a country!"?

A lot of truly great things begin with saying "What if?".

Just a few short weeks ago, I officially endorsed the colorful software pioneer and billionaire John McAfee as my candidate for President. He's running as a libertarian, and everything I've seen from and about him is admirably principled.

Also, he has that attractive quality of flamboyance that LP candidates have uniformly lacked over four decades. However, it now appears that the libertarian Party is going to have its usual embarrassingly stupid difficulty nominating and running anybody who is actually a libertarian. There are reasons for this, and a cure, which I will be happy to share provided that they pay me enough money. I have done it for free—and been ignored—long enough.

I didn't think so.

Here's a hint: devising a "libertarian tax program" isn't libertarian, any more than a proposed "libertarian Final Solution" would be. True adherence to fundamental principles demands that we strive to abolish all taxes, forever. If it was good enough for Queen Isabella at the tail-end of the 15th century, it oughta be good enough for us.

Taxation is theft.

Taxation is slavery.

Taxation is the fuel of war.

And now, at last, it all boils down to having to choose between an insanely murderous pathological liar, an ancient, out-of-the-closet commie, America's noisiest and flashiest flim-flam man, and a hypocritical religious prig. Do you remember that old Peggy Lee song, Is That All There Is?

It ain't gonna get any better. It can't, not in a society where the former inmates, the pathetically ignorant victims, of the public child-indoctrination system, are permitted—encouraged—to vote. As Robert A. Heinlein put it, vox populi, vox dei usually means "How the hell did we get into this mess?" This unspeakable disaster was the outcome intended from its very beginnings. We could burn the schools down, I suppose, but it's basically too late.

Thus I have reluctantly come to the following decision: in the absence of John McAfee's illustrious name on the November ballot, I suggest that everyone determined to vote take a pen or pencil to the polls, and write in "None of the Above". That's always been my wife's favorite choice. Sure, I know perfectly well that it's a futile gesture—the putrescently corrupt electoral system will not count protest votes unless they're authorized protest votes—but haven't things pretty much been arranged—pardon me, "rigged" so that futility is a feature of voting in general?

If not, point me to a pro-freedom candidate I can vote for.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2016/tle867-20160410-02.html
 
Back
Top