Info and download: Adobe Acrobat file
|
Info and download: Adobe Acrobat file
|
|
'98 Convention date & outline For 1998, the LPWS state convention returns to a weekend event. That's a national convention year, so the first priority was booking major guests. The dates are Saturday and Sunday, May 2-3, 1998, at a Seattle area site yet to be negotiated. The business meeting will be combined with hands-on workshops and seminars, conducted by both local and national leaders. Harry Browne and Michael Emerling Cloud have been booked so far—in different roles than their previous visits. Other names will be announced as they are finalized. Browne, the 1996 Presidential candidate, who now promotes the Libertarian Party and principles, will give a major speech Saturday afternoon. This will be billed as a media event, to help promote the LPWS. Tickets will also be promoted to the general public, to test our ability to raise money by bringing in major speakers. Delegates will attend "free" (as part of their convention package). Saturday evening will start with a "Meet Harry" reception, followed by the first annual LPWS Hall of Fame Banquet. Browne will personally present awards, honoring those who have been especially instrumental in developing our state party. The seminars and workshops are all planned for Saturday. Cloud, one of the party's most dynamic speakers, will address the banquet. He'll also conduct a seminar based on his popular "Techniques of Political Persuasion." Occasionally, two workshops will be run in tandem. Ron Crickenberger, LP National Political Director, is tentatively scheduled to conduct a two-hour seminar for candidates and campaign managers. That's a fairly narrow audience, so a simultaneous workshop will cover tips for "everyday activism" that can be used and applied by anyone. For much of Saturday, you'll be able to pick and choose from a variety of events. Separate tickets will be available for LPers who wish to attend only the speech and/or the banquet. The 1998 convention will be one of our biggest and best—another critical step toward becoming an emerging major party, with influence, in Washington state. |
 |
 |
|
LPWS member is statehouse leader By Mike Hihn You may already know this. Brian Thomas is in his fifth year as GOP State Representative for the 5th District (Issaquah, Maple Valley, North Bend and part of Renton). He holds one of the most powerful positions in Olympia — Chairman of the House Finance Committee. Here's what you don't know: Brian joined the Libertarian Party two years ago. He describes himself publicly as a libertarian, in appearances on Tom Isenberg's former talk show, and elsewhere. He even tried to get listed as a "Libertarian in office" on the LP's national web site. Isenberg says Rep. Thomas was a popular guest, with broad appeal. "Libertarians would call to say, 'There's a Republican I can support.' Republicans would call to say, 'There's a libertarian I can support.'" This is one legislator we can learn from. Brian's party membership became known here when he returned the Member Survey. When asked to list any special skills which might help the LPWS, he described his chairmanship and terms in office. In two separate interviews, Rep. Thomas was eager to help LPers. He wants like-minded allies in Olympia, from any party, and notes that even a few Democrats now call themselves libertarian. He has fresh ideas on expanding libertarian influence. Consider his view on caucuses. In Congress, the Republican Liberty Caucus works to expand libertarian influence within the GOP. That's too narrow for Olympia, says Thomas, where both Republicans and Democrats are already "small-l" libertarians. Thomas envisions a Libertarian Caucus that would start with the older parties, and be there to work with LP candidates as we start electing them. Thomas cautions, though, that a Libertarian Caucus may be premature. The average voter needs a better understanding of libertarianism. That should come, says Thomas, from the new LPWS emphasis on campaigns, elections and visibility. Thomas is strong on tax issues, like many statehouse Republicans. His libertarian streak shows as we move to school choice, privatization and civil liberties. Like libertarian congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), Thomas appeals to the "leave us alone" coalition of economic and civil libertarians, and limited-government conservatives. Note that a Ron Paul and a Brian Thomas start from different core supporters, but both work to expand their support into the same broader base. Thomas is more transitional than Ron Paul, but he's with us on a big one: he opposes the war on drugs. The drug war is not a centerpiece of Thomas campaigns. But as we know, it comes up anyhow for libertarians. When it comes up for Brian, his rhetoric on imprisoning nonviolent drug users, the innocent bystanders slaughtered in gang turf wars, and defending the Bill of Rights is smooth and rapid-fire. But here Thomas becomes a friendly critic. His position is not drug legalization, it is decriminalization — the most liberal version, no prescriptions. He was pleased to hear our state platform now allows LP candidates to campaign on decrim. "Libertarians will disagree on how to end the drug war," he says, "but we should agree our first priority is to release people now rotting in jail for minor and nonviolent drug use." He added a campaign tip that he finds successful at pealing away swing voters. Using slight exaggeration, "If you don't want your children to see people staggering around high on pot in the streets, then simply make it a public nuisance law." I told him about last year's winning marijuana initiative in Arizona — which went beyond medical marijuana and released all nonviolent offenders. The Arizona LP opposed it because it mandated drug rehab. "That's what concerns me," Brian responded, "keeping people in jail to satisfy some sort of purity test." Regarding purity, Thomas was unaware of what I call the "Tom Stahl syndrome." Stahl's personal politics are about as pure as they come. But it was Stahl who fought for years, often alone, to make our platform more acceptable to mainstream voters, and to liberate our candidates. Increasingly, Libertarians are separating their personal beliefs from what the party and its candidates should be doing. "I hadn't seen that side of it," Brian acknowledged, "and it's certainly encouraging. That's how you win elections, start governing, and move closer to your ultimate goals." Brian's LP membership came well after he'd established himself with voters as a Republican. But most Libertarians could copy with comfort both his career path and his campaign issues — especially now, when restless voters are looking for fresh, acceptable alternatives. Thomas began with a nonpartisan office, election to the Issaquah school board, as we advised readers to consider last month. Education remains a core issue. Thomas was prime sponsor of the 1995 charter school bill, which passed the House but got sidetracked in the Senate. He got a significant school bill passed this session, allowing school districts to contract with private suppliers of educational services — an incremental step toward school choice. Public schools may now simply contract with Sylvan Learning Center—or go to competitive bids grade by grade, subject by subject. Thomas chairs the statewide committee for Referendum Bill 47, which would cut property taxes by 4.7% and place a tighter cap on future increases (from 106% to the lesser of 106% and the published inflation rate). This began as a bill which passed both houses, only to be vetoed by the Governor. It's a battle Thomas clearly relishes. "The Governor has a big hammer with his veto pen, but the legislature has just as big a hammer with the referendum clause." In this state, the legislature can bring vetoed bills directly to the people, no signatures required. Thomas will be contributing periodic columns to Washington Libertarian.
|
 |
|
Who are we?The complete Survey Report may be viewed or downloaded on the LPWS web site. Click "Member Services" from the home page. Or request a copy from the State Director — using email, the Seattle phone line or the toll-free line. 114 surveys were analyzed, for a response rate of 13.9% versus pre-mailing guesstimates of 10-15%. Surveys are still coming in, presumably as members come back from vacation. For those who wanted a direct response on a pressing matter, all received a prompt phone call (one exception, presumably an extended vacation). Other, less urgent, questions will all be answered eventually, by postal and email.
Unlike the GOP, we rank spending — not taxes — at the top. We are the most anti-tax party in America. Also the most honest: no gimmicks, cut spending.
Internet. 43% have no access to the Net (email or web). 23 had visited the LPWS web site, and gave it a letter grade of B+ (3.2). For additions to the web site, state party position papers led with a 2.3 average (3.0 max), followed by a resource guide for news media (1.9). Tied at 1.8 were party manuals and a Nolan Chart on state issues. Near-term priorities. Respondents circled their preferences for the next 12-18 months. There were a few comments that "leadership should get on with it." The purpose of this question may need to be clarified. For comparison, think instead of a political poll, done for a candidate. A Bill Clinton might commission a poll to determine what he believes. But a more principled candidate (Libertarian, of course) would use the poll differently. How well do respondents already understand my issues? What might I need to explain better? Same here.
Several questions regarding organizational structure, between the state and regions, rated low. The urgency here may be beyond our control. LP National has an aggressive project to develop 75,000 new members. Our own membership would nearly triple—even if we did nothing at the state level. We could find ourselves again facing an obsolete organization structure. For example, consider an Executive Committee with 45 people! Leadership Rankings. With so many new members there were a lot of skips and No Opinion. This is a "baseline" measurement, which will be measured again next year. It was asked prior to the election of current officers. For state-level leadership, of 47 explicit responses, 8.5% said Excellent, 48.9% said Basically Sound With a Few Solvable Problems, 40.4% asked What Leadership? For regional level, more than half our members are in areas with literally no officers, so this baseline should not be compared with the state level. Of 57 explicit responses, 3.5% said Excellent, 57.9% said Basically Sound, and 35.1% said What Leadership? Projects/Targeted Monthly Pledges. The question asked how much you might pledge per month, for specified project areas. There were 68 responses, with no single project getting more than 41 selections. That's a very high percentage – presumably because the more active and committed members would be more likely to respond at all.
What we learned is that some members prefer targeting their support to certain projects, others prefer to let the board decide. Some prefer a regular monthly pledge, others prefer contributing periodic lump sums. Of those who target, some support only one project, others spread their support around. Fundraising is a necessary party function. It makes sense to conduct project funding in whatever method you prefer. That's more complicated to manage, and needs to be fully automated so we don't just confuse you (like the choices on your phone bill). Thanks to those who participated. Leadership must lead—but also look over its shoulder now and then, to see if anyone is following.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The other activism
Libertarians are also involved in quiet activism, behind the scenes, often in leadership roles. We're fiercely partisan, but also active in nonpartisan, grassroots political action. Janet R. Anderson is the Grande Dame of that Libertarian activism. Back in the 1960s, it was Janet's property tax appeal that eventually caused all property to be assessed at full fair-market value. Fairness is an issue claimed by the political left, but it's always been central to Janet's libertarianism. Her passion is focused on election laws, and how they shape our system. This led her to join the League of Women Voters, in 1959. At her very first meeting, she recalls shock at learning the state legislature routinely ignored the requirement to redistrict every ten years. Today, it's hard to imagine anything shocking her. "My winning tax appeal, and the resulting change to fair tax assessments, taught me that individuals can make a difference," she says. Janet calls herself the "token Libertarian" at the League of Women Voters. Fiscal conservatives are a rare breed in that organization. But she has been elected President of the Snohomish County League, and served many years on both the State and Seattle League boards. For the past three years, she's been a leader in the nonpartisan civic group, Citizen's for Proportional Representation — sponsors of the petition drive to change Seattle's City Charter. (See July Washington Libertarian.) Another fairness issue. Janet's interest in ballot fairness led her to study alternative election systems, developed since those we adopted in colonial times. Time will tell whether or not Janet is again ahead of the pack. But she insists, "It's only a matter of time before Americans reform their voting system." Political action includes a wide range of intensity, from protests and rallies, to the civic meetings and educational activities of a Janet Anderson. Libertarians are involved across that range, making a difference in their communities. If you're involved this way, don't be shy. Share your story with our readers.
Showing the Libertarian differenceKen Houghton, party treasurer, only recently discovered he's a libertarian. But he's always been a political activist. Being politically active, Ken spent a lot of time with our critics in an older party. His tip for this month is based on what our critics say about us – and how to change our public image. "We don't like government," he says, "but that's only half the story. If we were just anti-government, we'd be seen as no different than Timothy McVeigh – which is how many people see us." The difference between Libertarian and merely anti-government was defined by Michael Cloud, in his "Essence of Political Persuasion." Cloud says, and Houghton wants to show, that being anti-government is not enough. One must also be for something. Here's Cloud's critique:
Here's Houghton on the same topic:
If food drives and Earth Day aren't your style, pick something else. Ken's point is that Libertarians are involved in their communities just as often (and as seldom) as anyone else, but there aren't enough of us to make an impression. We're invisible. His solution is to buy a blue windbreaker with the party name and logo, and wear it for his civic and volunteer work. That's it. You'll never find an easier way to promote the Libertarian difference. It's not just wearing the windbreaker, it's what you're doing at the time. Ken's one-person "demonstration" may not be for you. But if it is, just add the windbreaker to what you're already going and become an instant activist for liberty. Show your neighbors you're not just against government. Lined LP windbreakers cost $25, ordered through LP News. For even greater visibility, can you get together with other nearby Libertarians? A few months ago, "Christmas in April" was a nationwide project to rehab homes for the poor, elderly and disabled — mostly be employees of sponsoring corporations. In a single day, private volunteers probably did more than a decade of government Urban Renewal schemes. Can you imagine a dozen visible Libertarians, swarming over a derelict house? Tape at 11. Doug Thornton and Mike Hihn have already signed on with Ken, and ordered the windbreakers. This is not a party project. It's three Libertarians, doing projects on their own. Let's not plan it to death. If you'd like to join them, or discuss similar projects outside of Seattle, send email to either of three: Ken, Doug, or Mike.
|
 |
|
A primer on homeschoolingEd Note: "Principled Solutions" is a planned series of occasional articles, with two purposes. Party members will become better acquainted with lesser-known issues important to many libertarians. Non-members will have more reasons to visit our web site in search of ... principled solutions. Janice is a homeshooler, so she agreed to start the series by departing slightly from her traditional Liberty Belle perspective.
While it used to be that a parent could be hauled into court or have their children taken by the state, this rarely happens now. Homeschooling is much more widely accepted. It is estimated that there are now over a million homeschoolers in the United States, and their ranks continue to grow. Homeschooling is legal in all states, but rules and regulations vary. Washington state has a homeschooling law and its requirements are fairly simple. The parent is required to file an annual declaration of intent with their school district, ensure that test scores or annual academic progress assessment and immunization records (together with any other records kept relating to the instructional and education activities provided) are forwarded to any other public or private school to which the child transfers (if they do). The child should take a standardized achievement test annually—or the parent should obtain an annual written assessment from a certificated teacher. Some school districts in the state may loan textbooks or offer extra-curricular activities (though state law does not require that they do so). A wealth of information is available to those interested in learning more about homeschooling. You can check out books and homeschooling publications at your public library (I particularly liked John Holt's "Teach Your Own" and the Colfaxes' book "Homeschooling for Excellence"). I like the "Home Education" magazine (Home Education Press, P. O. Box 1083, Tonasket, WA 98855, (509) 486-1351) but there are other homeschooling publications. If you have Internet access, the world of homeschooling is open to you with oodles of information on "how to," curriculum, teaching methods, etc. (Search "homeschool" from Alta Vista.) There are two statewide organizations one may contact: Family Learning Organization, P. O. Box 7247, Spokane, WA 99207, phone: (509) 467-2552; or the Washington Homeschool Organization, 18130 Midvale Avenue North, Seattle, WA 98133, phone: (206) 298-8942. One of the national organizations is the "National Homeschool Association," P. O. Box 290, Hartland, MI 48353, (513) 772-9580. These organizations can put you in touch with support groups and provide helpful information. Sometimes there are curriculum fairs where seminars on homeschooling issues, as well as curriculum, may be offered. The aforementioned organizations can tell you when and where. There are international homeschooling organizations, religious- based organizations, "unschooling" organizations, and associations for parents of special needs children. Almost any kind of support you may want, you can find. Homeschoolers generally fall into one of three categories as far as their teaching method: "school at home" (bringing the traditional classroom into your home), "unschooling" (rejecting traditional methods almost entirely), and "eclectic" (a combination of traditional and untraditional methods). It has been my observation that the "school at home" approach is most likely to lead to burnout; the unschooling method is most likely to create some anxiety (e.g., is my child learning anything?); while the eclectic method provides the most flexibility. Education today is far more than books, pencils, and paper. Video and audio tapes, computer programs (even high school diplomas offered through the Internet), educational games, correspondence courses, field trips, TV (channels like "The History Channel"), apprenticeships, and many other activities can round out the education experience. Homeschoolers' success at raising smart, well-adjusted kids is being demonstrated nationwide. A good education is vital to raising informed, independent, and successful young adults. For homeschoolers, gaining admission to institutions of higher learning is generally not difficult (high school diplomas mean less and less—test scores and written essays may mean more) and some prestigious schools have enthusiastically welcomed homeschooled students. Homeschooling is a great way to both educate your children and to foster freedom in education. Moerschel chairs the Spokane County LP, and homeschools her own children.
|
|
New State Officers ProfiledMary Maas, State Chair, is regional sales manager for an electronic connectors manufacturer. She holds a BSBA with a Marketing major. Her business causes her to travel throughout the state, which allows her to touch base with each Region. In June, Mary attended Spokane's monthly meeting with husband Dave (Island County Chair). John Gearhart, our most successful candidate so far, was appropriately elected Campaigns Chair. John polled over 20% in his last two (of three) campaigns for the statehouse. He's a small-business owner, with his own drapery business in Palouse. He and his wife have raised four children. Membership Chair Brett Wilhelm holds the same chair in Island County. Brett, a corporate manager, attended the convention with his wife, Jan, a Realtor. Brett brings unique insights to this critical chair, having belonged to the San Diego (CA) LP, which has 600 members in a single county. Doug Langworthy, Finance Chair, is a second-year student at Whatcom Community College, majoring in Political Science and Economics. Doug recently began serving as President of his school's student government. He'll be attending Western next year, where he plans to organize a campus Libertarian group. He'd also like to organize individual campus groups into a statewide network. Doug lives in Bellingham with his wife, Kate. Both work part-time for Starbucks. Doug Thornton heard what the convention plan was, re-joined the party that morning, and went home as Public Relations Chair. Doug recently left a successful career as a computer professional and operations manager to pursue his love of political writing. As a writer, Doug's goal is to relate libertarian principles to the everyday concerns of typical Americans. He lives in Seattle with his wife Jocelyn, a Boeing engineer. They are raising two children. Ken Houghton, Treasurer, has been a party member for five months, the classic case of "discovering" he was a Libertarian. As reported elsewhere (see Activists for Liberty), the LP got more than a Treasurer — we also got a creative political activist. Ken is a Marine Engineer living in Renton. July Meeting
For the first meeting of a mostly new board, State Chair Mary Maas combined the business meeting with a management retreat at the Maas home on Whidbey Island. In addition to traditional reports and votes, several Action Requests were voted for inclusion in the party newsletter. The Action Requests are consolidated at the end of this report. In her opening remarks, Maas noted that party membership would double if every current member enrolled just one new person. John Gearhart obliged immediately, by presenting a completed enrollment and dues from Lynne Gearhart (rumored to be a relative). Andria Frost was appointed Chair of a newly-created Research Committee. The committee, to consist of up to four additional volunteers, is a new resource to directly aid the election of Libertarian candidates and achieve Party objectives. Authorized activities include obtaining voting records of opposition incumbents, legislation and ballot initiatives, statistical and related data. Frost will also create and maintain the central storage of party archives. Committee members will be appointed by the Research Chair, from nominations by Regional Chairs. The board created a new "lending library" for libertarian-related books, audio and video tapes. Doug Thornton, PR Chair, was appointed party Librarian, to create and manage the program, solicit donated materials, and propose purchases as required. Tom Stahl, Regional Rep for central Washington, was re-appointed Platform Chair. Mike Hihn, State Director, was appointed Convention Chair, following board approval of his proposed 1998 state convention plan (see page 1). Treasurer Ken Houghton, a Life Member of the NRA, has been appointed to that organization's legislative action committee (CLAW), and named a Registered Agent for the NRA membership council in this state. At his first NRA committee meeting, Houghton obtained two new paid members for our party. As liaison between the LP and NRA interests, Houghton also helped arrange the July speaker for West King County's Liberty Supper Club — Joe Waldron, Chairman of WECARE (Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Excess), who spoke against Initiative 676, the handgun licensing measure. The board endorsed the WECARE campaign to oppose I-676. Houghton obtained monthly costs for distributing party flyers on the state ferry system, ranging from $275 to $475 depending on the number of months. The minimum buy-in would be $1353 for 3 months, plus $700 for 10,000 flyers. If 10,000 flyers were taken by passengers, distribution costs would be 13.5 cents each, or higher if fewer are taken. The number of flyers actually taken is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate. The market has good demographics, but distribution would be more costly than non-profit Bulk Mail postage. The board voted to proceed, if one or more benefactors stepped forward to fund the project. Membership Chair Brett Wilhelm is researching the costs of providing a free premium to all new members. He wants it to be inexpensive, and help new members become more effective communicators for liberty. Robert Hill reported his "temporary Libertarian discussion group" may expand to three monthly locations in Pierce County. Hihn reported a firm date for the East King County Re-Organizing Convention, a dinner meeting on August 20th in Bellevue. The exact location will be announced in convention packets, mailed after the number of pre-registrations has been determined. New advertising rates were approved for Washington Libertarian, effective the October issue. Hihn is commissioned sales agent for WL ad space, and pays regional parties 15% on accounts they develop. Finance Chair Doug Langworthy, who had previously volunteered as Regional Organizer for Whatcom County, inquired about adding Skagit — which is allowed by party bylaws and past practice. Langworthy also disclosed his intention to contact other campus Libertarians, and begin exploratory work towards developing a statewide network of student organizations. Board consensus is to provide support and encouragement to campus groups, as needed, but leave actual organizing and management to students themselves. Chairman Maas moved the standing meeting date forward by one week, to better accommodate the newsletter closing date. Meetings will be the second Saturday of odd-numbered months. Action Requests
|
Equality And Liberty are Irreconcilable
The July 21 issue of The Nation, that crusty chronicle of leftish thought, carries a roundtable discussion of this wrenching issue by nine certified leftist lawyers (advocates of censorship outnumber free speech defenders 5-4—a symbolic reversal of recent Supreme Court decisions, perhaps?) The Court's ruling on assisted suicide has likewise opened a schism on the Left. While most leftists have defended the right of persons with agonizing or terminal illnesses to seek competent help in ending their lives, many foragers in that swamp urge restrictions, on the ground that vulnerable populations will be "exploited" by greedy hospitals seeking to rid themselves of the burden of caring for under-reimbursed Medicaid patients, or by greedy relatives anxious to preserve their anticipated estates. All this agonizing is merely the latest manifestation of a chronic syndrome that has dogged the modern Left since its inception: the irreconcilability of liberty with demands for equality. Jeffrey Freidman, the "postlibertarian" editor of Critical Review, has written that "Liberalism has always struggled with the tension created by the conflict between liberty and equality." This tension is amply evident in The Nation's free speech roundtable, and in law professor Sanford Levinson's quandary over the assisted suicide ruling. "The trend of ceding power to the powerful," write Ronald K. L. Collins and David M. Skover, "represents the collapse of liberalism into libertarianism ... equality is no longer one of the central principles of the First Amendment. Incredibly, it is now a First Amendment evil." Or as Owen Fiss complains, "A rule that would do no more than guarantee unregulated talkativeness ... would put in jeopardy important social goals ... .like equality and free speech itself." Equality, too, is at the root of Levinson's struggle: since some people are more vulnerable to exploitation than others, let's equalize things by denying everyone the liberty of ending their own lives. Er, but when was equality ever a "central principle" of the First Amendment? And by what criteria does equality count as "an important social goal"? In Anarchy, State, & Utopia, Robert Nozick observed that, while there is "no lack of unsupported statements of a presumption in favor of equality ... there is a surprising dearth of arguments for equality." Indeed there is. The fact is that social equality is a spurious addition to liberal theory, an illegitimate contortion of the traditional liberal commitment to equality of moral status—the precept that no person possesses a "divine right" to rule others, and that valid laws apply equally to everyone. The modern assumption on the Left that natural inequalities of all sorts—in talents, strengths, motivations, and skills, and the differences in wealth and social stature to which they can give rise—are unjustified and must be remedied by State action, largely derives from Marx's analysis of society's "class structure," in which economic differences are seen as artificial, resulting from the alliance of the State with the interests of the "capitalist class." Even though Marx's analysis of society and the economy has been refuted in virtually every detail, the supposition that inequalities in wealth and status are the results of "exploitation" of the masses by a "ruling class" continues to dog leftist thought. Leftist persist in imagining that social and economic equality are the natural state of society, and that the inequalities observed in contemporary society are but artifacts of a warped social structure. But it just ain't so. Inequality is the normal state of every natural population. Some fir trees are grow taller and are more resistant to disease than others. Some spiders build more elegant webs than others. And in every human society not excessively encumbered by an overbearing State pursuing some vapid ideology, some people are healthier, wealthier, and wiser than others. And there is nothing "unjust" or unnatural about it. The Left's attempt to simultaneously pursue liberty and equality resembles an extreme case of bipolar disorder. It will never achieve equality because human nature will not allow it. But the futile pursuit of that ill-chosen goal will destroy liberty too. So, you on the Left, avail yourselves of a few intensive sessions with a good Libertarian therapist who will help rid you of your egalitarian demons. Take the cure; it will bring you peace. Morton's musings are crafted in Spokane.
|
The Dallas Accord, Minarchists, and why our members sign a pledgeBy Mike Hihn "What's a minarchist, and why would anarchists join a political party?" Those are the questions asked most by newer libertarians. It is largely for newer Libertarians that this column is written. According to the Member Survey, minarchists (20%) and anarchists (10%) together comprise less than 1/3 of all respondents. Ten years ago, they were the entire party. Correction: ten years ago we were the entire party. I'm a minarchist myself, a word invented (I believe) by libertarians. Minarchists prefer absolute minimal government, sufficient to defend individual liberty. Minarchists join political parties for the same reason anarchists do, to win elections, expand liberty and reduce government abuse. Some political parties have advocated violence — Hitler comes to mind — but those parties were totalitarian from the get go. Libertarians are the only party that explicitly rejects violence, except in self-defense, and expects every member to certify agreement. You may chuckle when I call the Libertarian Party is a "big tent." But it's true. We occupy a yet small corner of the political spectrum, but within that corner are more diverse political beliefs than both older parties combined. Newer members don't see that diversity at first, and may later be confused by it. There are fundamental differences in what our members see as a proper role for government — original constitution, much less than that, or none at all. Yet, we manage to co-exist and work together. That is precisely why we shall prevail. Steve Dasbach, National LP Chair, describes our party as a Freedom Train. We're all on that train together, heading in the same direction. But we're not all going as far. Some will get off the train earlier than others. Eventually, the anarchists will be riding alone. That's not just an analogy. It's a strategy for eventual governing. As we've expanded from a tiny band of idealistic anarchists and minarchists, we've been forced to refine and expand our original coalition. We succeeded, by becoming a minority in the party we had founded — as we'd intended. (Well, some of us.) It began with the Dallas Accord, at the 1974 convention. Anarchists and minarchists agreed the party would be silent on whether government should exist. Our national platform includes phrases like, "Where governments exist ..." Now you know why. As the national party embarks on a massive recruiting drive, today's Libertarian coalition is again working to dilute its numbers. Some in the party fear we may also dilute our founding principles. That's possible. But our Freedom Train hasn't really left the station yet. It needs more passengers — a lot more passengers. The original coalition of anarchists/minarchists has been expanded to include Jeffersonian constitutionalists. Ironically, it's the minarchists resisting this expansion. To anarchists, it's what they already accepted in 1974. Minarchism traces mostly to best-selling novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand. Rand provided our common bond, opposing the initiation of force. Party founder David Nolan brought that into the party, as our pledge, and traces the concept to ancient Greeks. But Rand had popularized non-initiation a decade earlier. To Rand, individual liberty requires a single safeguard: prohibit the use of force, except in self-defense. Reason, justice, free markets and voluntary associations will then prevail. Rand's government is limited to police, national defense and a judicial system — to defend individual liberty from internal and external aggressions, and be a neutral arbiter of disputes. Then, because government is a agent of force, and because self-defense is the only legitimate use of force, government must be restricted to Rand's watchtower state. The reason is Jefferson's concept of delegated powers. I have no right to take Bill's money and give it to Mary. Thus, I can't delegate that power to government. Libertarians conclude that involuntary taxation is theft by force, which is true. Some then demand immediate repeal of taxes, on moral principle. But that was rejected even by Rand, the moral philosopher who taught us the principle. Rand also taught that voluntary taxation would be the last step, not the first step, in creating a free society. Minarchy provides our moral foundations. But a political party needs more. How do we get from here to there? Libertarian anarchists have contributed the best examples of how a voluntary society would work. But each time I type "anarchist" some readers will envision a scruffy thug with fangs, hurling Molotov cocktails. Is that how you picture Thoreau? Most of us read Thoreau's Walden in school and felt, perhaps briefly, the pastoral peace he sought. Thoreau was an anarchist. Jefferson said "that government governs best which governs least." Thoreau concluded that the very best government would then not govern at all. Thoreau's classic essay, "Civil Disobedience", inspired pacifists like Ghandi, not Timothy McVeigh. You don't have to go all the way with libertarian anarchists, but two books will enrich your knowledge of voluntary society. Machinery of Freedom is by David Friedman (Milton's son), a self-described anarcho-capitalist. Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty is also a good introduction. I prefer Friedman, especially if you want to explore further. Rothbard had more influence, but he sought to impose his own views on the party and eventually drifted away from the movement. Read anything by David Bergland, over and over, and you may never realize he's an anarchist.That's the point. Our focus must be personal liberty, not government. Hihn is Editor/Publisher of Liberty Issues, where this is published simultaneously.
|
 |
Events Calendar
Notify editor of announcements and updates. Non-party functions will be listed, if of interest to Libertarians. Web Site/Intranet
Help Wanted
|
 |
LPWS Executive Committee State Director
|
WL Info
Publisher Editor Contributing Editors Regional Correspondents
|
Hello fellow freedom spreaders. Many thanks to all who responded to the 1997
Member Survey. Rest assured the board values your opinion and will always factor it into
our decisions.
Libertarian Activism.
The words conjure images of Tax Day protests, gun rallies and Operation Politically
Homeless booths. That's visible activism.
In these often
trying times, when it seems few people understand or desire true freedom, libertarians
should live as free as possible—regardless of what the politicians may say or do.
Freedom of choice in education is vital, and homeschooling is one viable option for
educating one's children. 
Student Libertarians are not identified in
the party's database. Contact Doug Langworthy (see page 2), to get quickly involved in the
initial stages of organizing campus organizations. 
Last month's flurry of Supreme Court
rulings has stirred up a new frenzy of intellectual soul-searching on the political Left.
The court's decisive rejection of the federal attempt to regulate "indecency" on
the Internet, along with an earlier ruling upholding the right of candidates for public
office to spend their own money on their campaigns, plus a few other First Amendment
successes by "corporate" interests, have provoked a number of leftist pundits to
call for "reexamination" of the Left's traditional absolutist view of the First
Amendment. 
