3 political epiphanies

From a Warren Bluhm talk to a small group Thursday - hence the Wisconsin-centric references ...

Here are three moments in my life that stuck a light bulb over my head and made me say, "Yes, this is what I believe ..."

+ When, sitting in the bleachers at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh in the fall of 1978 listening to gubernatorial candidate Lee Sherman Dreyfus, I heard him say the now-legendary words, "Government has three duties: To deliver the mail, to defend the shores, and to get the hell out of my life."

+ When, watching the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in January 1981, he said, "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." I have since come to realize that statement goes far beyond "this present crisis" and applies to virtually every crisis imaginable.

+ When, covering a talk by Libertarian Party presidential candidate Andre Morreau at St. Norbert College in 1992, he said, "Both parties want to be your parent. Democrats want to be your mommy. Republicans want to be your daddy."

Both major parties are The Party of Big Government - they just have different priorities about what Big Government should achieve. And by attempting to accomplish goals for "the good of the people," they miss a basic point: Government is an instrument of force, not social justice. Its only tool is coercion - taxation eventually enforced at the point of a gun.

Fool me once, shame on you ... fool me a hundred times ... ?

Having once been a rabid attack-dog Republican, I am tempted to give Bob Barr the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he really has rethought his positions about the war on drugs, gay rights, freedom of religion, and all of the other areas where he once was as libertarian as Barack Obama or John McCain ... as John Roberts notes ...

Though he has softened somewhat with regard to the drug policy reforms so popular with Libertarian activists, for instance, Barr was once an ardent critic of medical marijuana and an over-the-top advocate for militarizing the "war on drugs."

Barr has also been a big-government man when it comes to restricting abortion rights (he's 100 percent anti-choice), marriage rights (he sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act) and freedom of religion (he once pressured the Pentagon to bar the practice of Wicca in the military).

When Barr was booted from Congress in 2002, Libertarians ran television ads condemning him.

Now he's their candidate.

Now, 10-12 years ago I may have held some positions that seem foolish to me now, so I will not spend any time questioning whether Bob Barr is sincere or just looking for a side road to the White House. After all, the next Libertarian presidential candidate to win the election will be the first one, so either he's sincere or he's insane enough to commit political suicide.

But there are some crystal clear facts about life. One of them is that states exist to suppress individual rights, even those states based in documents that assert states are created to "secure those rights." That's why 18th-century individualists insisted on another document that spells out some of the rights that the state is not allowed to suppress. That even seems to work from time to time, although most rulers feel free to ignore those documents with impugnity.

Another crystal clear fact is that going to a polling place operated by an oppressive state lends a false sense of legitimacy to that state. Barr is welcome to campaign for president, and he certainly offers a better statist alternative to those offered by the two branches of the major political party. Again, though, the least of three evils is still evil.

Liberty will be advanced outside of this political process, which has been corrupted beyond recognition. Freedom will be advanced one nonviolent individual act at a time, including the act of rejecting the charade that free people choose our leaders. Free people lead our own lives.

Once upon a time we thought of choosing representatives to represent our political views in the halls of government, but those representatives inevitably confused themselves with rulers. Give it a try if you wish, Mr. Barr. Just don't come to this corner looking for aid or comfort.

The Meme - and My Answer

Sunni asked me when she interviewed me for her Salon - lewlew tagged me with the meme - and Wally tagged me for good measure. The question is:

What motivated you to start looking into anarchist/libertarian thought?

You know what? In my case, that's two questions. When Sunni asked me "what and who led you to the freedom philosophy," I said:

Well, growing up and living in Jersey is an essential building block, I think. Living there just makes you scream, I have to be free of this! [laughs] I was your typical geeky awkward teenager, reading comics and science fiction and hanging around with the smart kids. I think reading Orwell as a teen was huge for my eventual transformation—1984 and Animal Farm scared the bejeebers out of me, and as I slooooowwwly started figuring out that they were coming true before my eyes, I started coming around to a vision of something better. Gotta admit I got sold on Ronald Reagan—Reagan the talker who said government is the problem, not Reagan the president who compounded the problem. Not that I grokked it fully at the time—I actually was a loyal little Republican for longer than I care to admit. I think I started becoming vaguely aware of libertarianism and Libertarians in the late '80s.

The last year, and communing with folks like Wally Conger and you, has really helped me crystallize not just that Big Government is the problem, but that I'm not the only one who thinks reasonable people can do without government just fine. It's been a chance to put together disjointed and seemingly unconnected thoughts and try to make them a coherent whole—Reagan the talker not the president, Marrou, Orwell, Bradbury, Heinlein, Gandhi.

Oddly, I forgot to mention my father, who taught me about taking responsibility for my life and was not afraid to tell us kids about the follies of the government in general and Democrats in particular. He maintains some faith in the Republican Party well into his 80s, but even he seems skeptical of late. I would not relish liberty as dearly had he not instilled it in me.

I didn't explicitly tell Sunni that my path was set the night I heard Andre Marrou speak, during his 1992 run for president as the Libertarian Party candidate. "Both major parties want to be your parent," he said. "The Republicans want to be your daddy, and the Democrats want to be your mommy." The tumblers clicked into place in my mind that night.

Not long afterward I stumbled across Liberty magazine, which for many years was my lifeline to the movement. Bill Bradford's journalism and coverage of Libertarian Party conventions led me to the unpleasant realization that the LP was like any other political party, which was a good thing, which led me to the second half of the question - how did I start thinking about life without government altogether?

It began with the chance re-connection in 2005 with my childhood pen pal, Wally Conger, the California teenager who had corresponded with my New Jersey teenager self. Most folks who visit here know who Wally is, so they know how I started reading people like Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov and, finally recently, Ayn Rand. Funny, because I'm told it usually starts with Rand, but my awakening seems to be concluding with her. More on that in a few days. (I'm almost at the 60-page speech, guys! But I must admit I'm getting a little weary of speeches. I GET it, Ayn, I GET it, now get on with it!)

Tag someone else? Nah, I'm going to do what Roderick Long did - I tag everybody! On second thought, if kyfho and John Newman want to add their answers in my comment section, I would be most intrigued by what they have to say.

About those newsletters

I suppose this is a positive sign; the Ron Paul phenomenon has gained enough momentum and attention that someone has bothered to dig up some dirt on him. At the heart of the controversy are newsletters that went out under Paul's name, especially in the early 1990s, with some seriously racist and homophobic kinds of stuff in them. Stuff like:

Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.

and

I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.

Paul says this crap was vomited out by a "ghostwriter" and folks like Wendy McElroy seem to have a clear idea who that ghostwriter is, urging him to come forward and accept responsibility for these words. Problem is, what if he's still a close associate of the congressman? Then we're not talking about the early 1990s, we're talking about now.

Does the ghostwriter still believe such horrid stuff, and does Paul still condone it? If so, they have failed a more basic litmus test for libertarianism than Walter Block's.

There's no place whatsoever in libertarian thought for clumping people into groups by skin color, religion, creed or any other criterion. Either you recognize the worth of every individual or you don't. As Paul himself said in his interview with Wolf Blitzer, racism is a collectivist notion because racists see people in groups.

He does a nice job in the interview with Blitzer of reassuring supporters that he repudiates those statements - Blitzer himself admits that after numerous interviews and other contacts with Paul, the old newsletters caught him by surprise. I don't believe Paul believes that garbage now, if he ever did.

However, Paul's response to questions about the origins of those writings has been pretty typical of a member of the political class, and that sure doesn't bode well. "I was busy," "I never read that stuff," "I don't know who wrote it, but the editor might"? If a newsletter was going out with my name and face blazoned across the top of the front page, I'd make damn sure the contents reflected what I believe.

The lesson in all of this is that if you place your faith in one person, especially one politician, to change your world, you will inevitably be disappointed. Ron Paul is still the only person among the current crop of presidential candidates worth giving a damn about, but he's not a savior - far from it.

Liberty is not something imposed by presidents or any other government officials. Their purpose is to determine the extent to which our liberty will be curtailed - Paul represents the light touch of the slave master's whip, and in that sense he is a far better alternative than any of the other candidates. If you yearn for freedom, you'll find it by the efforts of your hands, your mind and your heart, not by turning the reins of your life over to another person.

P.S. to lewlew - Yep, I noticed. Thanks, and I'm honored to be asked! I'll tackle that matter next.

Abolish slavery instead

Listening to: "Thunder Road," Bruce Springsteen

Walter Block has a few words for libertarians who have been unable to bring themselves to actively support Ron Paul for president. It's interesting to hear what Block thinks of us, but in terms of a response (having recently read The Fountainhead), I have to go with Howard Roark's memorable response to Ellsworth Toohey:

Toohey: Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us.
Roark: But I don't think of you.

Sunni Maravillosa, who is among those called out by Block in his essay, has more patience with the guy and has a detailed rebuttal. Block lost me long before he explained why voting for Paul would be a valid defensive act:

Suppose a slave master allows his slaves to choose between Overseer Goody, who has a very light and judicious touch with the whip, and Overseer Baddy, who never met a bloody back he didn’t like. The slaves take up the master on his offer, and vote for Goody. Are they thereby demonstrating support for slavery, for goodness sakes? No; they are only registering a preference for Goody over Baddy.

This is a perfect analogy. We have more than a dozen overseer wannabes who are itching to bloody backs, and one guy who promises "a very light and judicious touch with the whip."

Don't you see, Walter? He's still going to use the whip.

I admire Paul and, if we have to have a Great Ruler, acknowledge he is the best of the lot. But voting to give someone the whip is not an option for a free man.

Another 'yeah baby'

This time for Ken Schoolland.