Glenn Beck and Libertarianism (Not a Love Story)

There now seems to be a small rift growing between Glenn Beck, who claims to be evolving into a libertarian, and a number of the libertarians he hopes to attract with his new media project. Of course many are skeptical of a guy who, for many years supported the Bush administration, seems always to have supported the U.S. government’s wars overseas, and backed this guy for president in 2012.

That he recently accused the founder of Students for Liberty, Alexander McCobin, of being a jerk and a Nazi makes this all the more comical. McCobin was addressing the annual conference of Students for Liberty (SFL) when he suggested Beck’s libertarian cred may not be up to muster. Beck it seems was upset that he’s not being taken seriously and used his radio show to air his grievance.

In response, McCobin challenged Beck to “engage [young libertarians] in a meaningful conversation, embrace the positions where libertarianism is substantially different from conservatism, and work with [them] for a truly freer future.” He also offered that while he may call himself a libertarian, there’s no reason anyone has to accept Beck’s transition. As Andrew Kirell sarcastically put it: “We are glad for your newfound support for legal marijuana, gay marriage, and your backing down from Bush-era hawkishness. But many of us libertarians prefer to say ‘thanks but no thanks.’”

One peculiar point raised by McCobin in his letter to Beck was “that libertarianism is difficult to define, and there is significant room for debate.” Actually no, it’s rather simple to define, and there shouldn’t be any room for debate.

Libertarianism is simply the political system wherein the initiation of force is not acceptable. The use of force may only be used in defense against aggression and where force is being unjustly applied to persons or property. Beyond that all interaction is to be under voluntary terms and any system which deviates from this may not be accurately described as libertarian.

The Space Between

Using a recent debate sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) as a spring board, Tim Hartnett tackled the question of “What is the Conservative Movement?” in a piece for the Mises Institute. The debate, between Reason’s Matt Welch and National Review Online’s Jonah Goldberg, centered on whether “libertarians [are] part of the conservative movement?”

Hartnett posits that: “A simple way to demonstrate the chasm that separates libertarians from ‘conservatives’ of the 21st century is to use news incidents and media images as Rorschach inkblots and consider how differently each would respond.” He goes on to list several news items from recent history to show how wide indeed the “chasm” is between “Dittoheads” and libertarians.

The first image he uses is of a generic reality TV show depicting police officers in their daily activities. There are many such shows, and Hartnett is correct when he writes: “When a libertarian witnesses an emaciated destitute, confronted, seized, and roughly rifled by the constabulary under dubious pretenses on ‘reality’ TV, he is not immediately elated.”

He continues:

We are offended by the image of a man abject — on the ground and in the clutches of enormous, armored, and heavily armed men — without substantive evidence that he has harmed someone else. That these same public servants can bust into people’s homes, terrorize their children, kill their pets, shackle their persons, and destroy personal property on the flimsiest of pretexts is repellent to anyone placing even a modest value on the word liberty.

For an idea of just how far into the clutches of tyranny we have slipped, one need only browse the many “reality” TV shows glorifying the police state. “COPS” was first, but in the decades since its debut one can now watch a host of shows, including “Lockup,” “Cook County Jail,” “Wardens,” “Border Wars,” and “SWAT.”

While at times actual criminal suspects are booked in the jail shows, many are brought in for non-crime crimes such as drug possession or prostitution. Wardens is, of course a show about game wardens, who patrol (mostly) “public” lands looking to bust anyone who hasn’t paid to hunt on the King’s land. Not too long ago someone who hunted the King’s dear was considered a hero; not anymore. “Border Wars” is mostly video evidence of how futile the drug war is, and how inhumane the fed’s immigration policy is. And finally, “SWAT” chronicles the daily violence doled out to the populace in support of the drug war. There are times where violent offenders are targeted, but those instances, like the many jailhouse shows, are few and far between. The audience is mostly treated to clips of over-paid, trigger-happy storm-troopers of the sort Thomas Jefferson railed against in the Declaration of Independence.

But on the other hand, conservatives have no apparent disdain for such displays of state violence. As I noted last fall, they practically cheered as police at UC Davis showered non-violent protestors with harsh chemical agents.

From here the author discusses the career of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who claims, as a sniper in Iraq, to have killed more than 250 people. I once heard a radio interview with Kyle where he boasted of his killing, and the host, Greg Knapp, who claims to be a Christian, hailed him as a hero. (That Christians ought only to have one hero, and that only soldiers in God’s army should earn their admiration is sadly lost on many Evangelicals). Knapp went on to ask if he’s experienced emotional problems or has any regrets from his “profession,” and Kyle’s response was no. His only regret was that he hadn’t taken even more lives.

That the war he helped wage was not defensive in nature at all means that he was the aggressor in the situation. He is said to have killed a woman attempting to throw a hand grenade at an invading army. How is that noble? Where is the heroism in that act?

It’s precisely this distinction between defensive and offensive action that is lost on conservatives who, as Hartnett shows, know only to reflexively defend the military and its adventures. On the prevailing conservative attitude he writes that: “Not only may we invade nations that never attacked us, but now anyone defending his homeland risks becoming the subject of the sadistic whims of federal agents.”

Hartnett finishes with an indictment of the conservative news media which serves to perpetuate the conservative ethos of state-worship.

Much of today’s professional television ‘news’ revolves around name calling, subjective characterization, innuendo, one-upmanship, distorted context, and other gimmicks that get no one any closer to the truth or to valid conclusions. Dissenters are shut down with the ‘conspiracy-theory’ bludgeon by the very people finding plots against their vague ideals lurking in every shadow. Cable news continues to strive for the dignity of pro wrestling, even if Bill O’Reilly has learned to stop telling his guests to ‘shut up.’

The so-called conservative movement, unmoored by any true desire for limited government, can only evolve into a party of national mythos. Lacking any lodestar, it must eventually return to the fold of elite institutions that have repeatedly failed in their duties. Any idea of US ‘exceptionalism’ that isn’t rooted in limited government is a deranged political voodoo.

Indeed, because the government school system has neglected to provide even rudimentary education in analytic and basic reason, the populace (from Left and Right) is content to ingest all that is fed to them by the media, without so much as an ounce of critical thinking. Worse still, those who diligently tune into talk radio and nightly cable opinion shows believe they are informed and enlightened, when just the opposite is true.

A reader commented on Hartnett’s piece, writing that “This kind of needlessly obnoxious piece is precisely why libertarians get nowhere as a movement. Making fun of people who are ideologically similar for being insufficiently intelligent is self defeating….” But of course the piece is meant to demonstrate just how dissimilar the two ideologies are.

The chief difference between the two is not in their rhetoric, which in many areas is hard to distinguish, but in their actions. Conservatives often promote the virtues of free enterprise and individual liberty, but so often when the chips are down, side with the state. And that is why libertarians are not part of the conservative movement.

Another Look at “The Hunger Games” Trilogy

For another take on ”The Hunger Games“trilogy, see Austin White’s excellent analysis over at his blog Stop the State. In it, he gives a brief plot synopsis and commentary on the youth audience the books were written for. And finally he dives into the heart of the series, which is essentially the LewRockwell.com motto of “anti-state, anti-war, pro-market.”

White covers the role of the police and how only the most brutal are selected and retained. He discusses the role of the market in preserving what quality of life it can, given the Total State’s control over the lives of the people of Panem. And finally he describes the sledgehammer the series’ author, Suzanne Collins, takes to the state and its wars.

From the article:

The primary issue of the series is war and it is at the final chapters where interstate war receives the complete uncompromising, unrelenting condemnation it deserves. There is no glory depicted. Libertarians often correctly point out that wars between countries are in fact wars between governments, but Collins shows wars between governments for what they really are: the State versus every single one of us. All sides will eventually commit atrocities, all sides become indefensible, no innocent on any side is safe from the State, and the people who bear the greatest costs are almost always those who least deserve it.

Read the rest here.

What Are Civil Rights?

Ron Paul has been consistently polling at number one in Iowa or at a statistical tie for first depending on who you ask. This obviously can’t stand since he’s a threat to the establishment. In desperation the media from both left and right have been doing everything they can to disrupt his campaign. The issue of race in American politics has again come out, with everyone trying to paint Paul as a racist.

Whether true or not, the stigma associated with being accused of racism is oftentimes enough to shutdown any debate or discourse. “Oh, he’s a racist because you said he is? That’s all I need to hear.”  End of discussion.

This is a tragedy, even if it were true. For it means the accused isn’t even granted the opportunity to explain his position. It also means that philosophic questions about what role, if any, government has in such issues are muddled at best. The alleged racist might possess a very well grounded argument. One supported by reason and a consistent understanding of justice. But no one would ever hear it.

This is largely because the average consumer of news has been conditioned to expect an entire political platform to be delivered in a four minute interview. Sound bites are perfect for platitudes; not so much for presenting a substantive argument. This is why “debate” questions are limited to only 60 seconds. It allows candidates who have nothing to offer but well-rehearsed talking points an opportunity to sound “presidential.” Genuine thinking takes more time to present and understand.

As an anecdote, let me point out that I know something about racial discrimination. While in high school I applied for a job at a Mexican restaurant. I was denied. The manager told me they only hired Mexicans.

My initial reaction was of shock. Then outrage. Then I thought about things. Freedom of association doesn’t only mean that two people are free to associate with one another. It also means they are free not to associate with one another.

Paul appeared on CNN’s American Morning last weekend and the host brought up Paul’s position on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Paul drew a connection between property rights and civil rights, saying the two are inseparable. If property rights are insecure, then so are civil rights, because it is from the right to own property that all other rights hinge.

If you can’t own pen and paper, or their modern analog the computer, how can you be free to enjoy the freedoms of press or expression? If one doesn’t own his body, how can he be free to use it in ways he wishes, including earning a living? Slaves were not allowed to own property as a means of controlling them. If they had the freedom to own possessions it would eventually undermine their status as someone else’s property.

Those who attack Paul, such as Michael Lind at Salon, deride his position on certain parts of the Civil Rights Act. He has said before that Jim Crow laws were evil and should never been in place to begin with. Any Libertarian understands this. The problem with the Civil Rights Act is that it goes too far by abrogating private property. It turns what are rightly private establishments into “public” property.

Lind refers to Locke’s understanding of rights, writing that “coercion in the service of communal self-defense is perfectly legitimate.” But what if Locke was wrong and coercion is never legitimate? What if, in order to protect the rights of the people, a government necessarily must violate their rights? Isn’t this contradictory? What other rights might the State violate in order to serve the “community?”

He goes on: “Libertarians typically argue that only government, backed by military and police power, can be tyrannical.” This is a false representation. Libertarian political theory is founded on the non-aggression principle, which must be applied consistently to everyone. Libertarians, unlike other political theorists, recognize that the State is simply the most tyrannical, since it claims a monopoly on the use of force/ violence.

…Ron Paul displays the moral idiocy of someone who declares that a person who pushes a little old lady out of the path of a bus is just as bad as a person who pushes a little old lady into the path of a bus, because both are equally guilty of pushing little old ladies around.

This is a false analogy. The problem with the Civil Rights Act, according to Libertarians, is that it’s not simply a matter of “pushing old [ladies] out of the path of a bus.” A more apt analogy would involve shoving someone else under the bus in place of the old lady, since the act violates the property rights of others. At this point it becomes a subjective argument over who is more valuable as a human: the old lady or whomever is standing next to her.

All of this stems from a misunderstanding of rights. Rights are different from privileges. They cannot be taken away, nor can they be granted. They are inherent, unalienable; they derive from our humanity, whether you believe from God or nature. A right does not require the action or consent of any other entity in order to be exercised.

We have the right to liberty. That is no one can rightfully compel us to do anything, nor can they restrict us from acting, so long as we don’t infringe on other’s rights. We have the right to own things through homesteading or original appropriation, or we can trade legitimately owned property. We are free to contract with one another to exchange goods or services.

We do not have a right to be served a meal at any restaurant. We don’t have the right to be hired by any company. We don’t have the right to receive anything from anyone without first arriving on mutually agreeable terms.

Business owners should not be forced to serve everyone who walks in the door. Doing so violates their rights to legitimately acquired property. Should a black restaurant owner be forced to serve a member of the KKK? What about a Jewish business owner being forced to serve a skinhead? The questions answer themselves.

The obvious question is why would a member of the KKK or a Neo-Nazi want to frequent these establishments? Why would someone choose to associate with people they hate? Or, why would someone voluntarily associate with someone who hated them?

Businesses which choose to discriminate do so at their own risk. By denying service to entire segments of the population they necessarily forfeit these groups to their competitors. If a business refuses to hire someone based on race alone then it’s the business who will suffer. Any other employer can take him on and enjoy his productive capacity.

That restaurant owner had every right to turn me away. Perhaps he wanted to present an atmosphere as authentically Mexican as possible. A suburban white kid would stick out among the other employees. He would immediately remind patrons they were not in fact eating in a picturesque little restaurant south of the border. Perhaps he just resented white people. Either way he was free to decide whom to hire.

Incidentally he closed his doors within a year of my application. I like to think it’s because he passed on the best bus boy ever to clear a table. Without my expertise they couldn’t compete and had to close down. It’s also possible they went under because I told everyone I knew not to frequent their establishment. This is how a free society deals with such behavior. Not with violence or coercion, but with ostracism and a refusal to transact business with them.

Gary Johnson? Libertarian?

Gary Johnson has never polled well compared to Ron Paul. However, he’s still fairly well liked by a number of libertarians, and is still running as a (pseudo) libertarian candidate. A quick glance at his campaign website makes me wonder how any serious libertarian takes him seriously. For anyone who actually supports him, or for those who know very little of his positions, I’ll show why he’s not the principled libertarian some make him out to be.

On foreign policy, Johnson appears to question the U.S. involvement overseas not from moral principals, but strictly on pragmatic grounds. His statement that “given trillion-dollar deficits, America simply cannot afford to be engaged in foreign policy programs that are not clearly protecting U.S. interests” implies that were the U.S. on better economic footing, intervention would be acceptable. This is simply wrong. The U.S. should not be involved in the affairs of nations for two chief reasons.

First, these wars violate the non-aggression principle, which holds that it is always morally wrong to initiate violence against innocent people. No one in Iraq posed a threat to anyone here. Likewise, very few in Afghanistan or Pakistan were of any threat to us; and those that did could have been brought to justice without waging total war. 172,000 civilians have been killed thus far. How might Americans react if a foreign military invaded their country, destroyed much of its infrastructure, and established a government loyal to its imperial rulers? Probably not too kindly, I’d imagine. Second, it is just this sort of meddling that leads to blowback – the unforeseen, unintended consequences of foreign intervention.

Take also his assertion that the U.S. government should “make better use of military alliances.” On the contrary, the U.S. should be divorced from the foreign world politically and militarily. Limiting U.S. involvement to peaceful trade would be far more prudent. Just like direct-action nation-building leads to blowback, so do military alliances. When one nation is given special treatment over another, animosity breeds within the opponents of the favored country.

Johnson also advocates military tribunals. These are nothing more than kangaroo courts designed to circumvent the existing criminal justice system, which itself is far from perfect. Defendants in these proceedings are not given due process. If acting in good faith, the government has done its due diligence, there is no reason that the criminal court system can’t handle these cases. It has worked up to this point; it does not follow that a new set of rules must suddenly be applied.

On civil liberties Johnson once again fails. He indorses one of the federal governments most invasive and draconian organizations – the TSA. He says that it “should take a risk-based approach to airport security,” when in fact, the correct position is that at the very least, the TSA should be disbanded. In a just society, those who commit what in every other context would be sexual assault should be tried as predators and deviants, including those who give such orders.

On the economy, Johnson supports price controls by the Federal Reserve. I don’t know any other way to interpret this statement: “Restrict Federal Reserve policy to maintaining price stability.” Just as Ron Paul has long been advocating, the true libertarian position on the fed is to eliminate it, not try to tinker on the margins. An institution such as the fed is blight on a free society. The problem isn’t the fed’s role, or who is in charge, the problem is that anyone is given this kind of power. Only someone living in a fantasy world could accept the premise that any group should be given the power to play god with the global economy and not rig the game for their own benefit.