I recently listened to the first of three hour-long monologues presented in a 24-hour period by Harry Browne, at a meeting of the San Diego Libertarian Party. He was given cheers and a standing ovation . . . and I came away understanding why the LP is hopelessly marginalized in American political life. [...] I had been told by organizers that Mr. Browne would debate me about pragmatism vs. idealism. Finding instead a camp meeting, featuring monologue pulpit sermons, I grew frustrated listening to calls for perfect fealty to the precise liturgy of Received Faith, reiterating that failure after failure at the ballot box need never provoke significant reflection upon the message itself.
No, we must stick to a purist party line that the American people have relentlessly rejected (in one form or another) for 70 years. No tweaking. No fresh approaches to replace stale ones. No gradualist proposals for free-market alternatives that might compete with statist solutions. No concessions to an American consensus that the best-educated people in world history have generally ratified in biannual elections for three generations. No, we must continue to rant at our neighbors that their consensus is 100% idiotic. Hallelujah.
Mr. Browne preached that we must reject incrementalism and stick to "educating" the foolish, unenlightened masses, hoping that someday, like the Berlin Wall coming down, a sudden change of state will miraculously occur. This has all of the hallmarks of a religion, not a political agenda grounded in assumptions of individual sovereignty.
In a market, you would laugh at a businessman who kept blaming his failures on the customers. Or whimpering that the market is biased to favor big players. A competitor with a good product should be able to get past such obstacles.
The LP—I'd add libertarians in general—are "hopelessly marginalized" because they demand "perfect fealty to the precise liturgy of Received Faith, reiterating that failure after failure at the ballot box need never provoke significant reflection upon the message itself". There's a lot of truth in that. "But," argue many libertarians, "compromise is absolutely impermissable. What would our principles be worth if we were willing to compromise them?"
That's an interesting question, and I've been dwelling on it for some time now. For those who argue that compromise is impermissable—that it is not something they would be willing to do, I have two questions:
Is there any such thing as a vertical demand curve? That is, is there anything for which increased cost would not induce any change in the level of demand?
Is there anything for which you would sacrifice your rights? (e.g., your liberty?) The life of your child, perhaps? If a band of thieves invaded your frontier home, would you fight, or might you abandon your property so that you (and your wife and child) could live to fight another day? If your family was stuck on one half of the proverbial desert island, and the other half of the island (with the only source of fresh water) was owned by a fellow who refused to allow you access to the water under any circumstances, would you let your family die of dehydration rather than going to get the water without his permission?
It seems to me that, if the answer to question #1 is "no"—and I would note that economist Paul Heyne, in The Economic Way of Thinking points out that "there is no such thing as a perfectly inelastic demand", calling vertical demand a "mythical creature", so if you suggest that there is vertical demand, then you've discovered something entirely new—then the answer to the second question must necessarily be "yes".
And if the answer to the second question is "yes", then you are willing to compromise your principles; you recognize the importance and validity of pragmatism in the face of difficult, imperfect choices. That is prima facie evidence that against the notion that compromise on the principle of liberty is necessarily immoral.
Yet doctrinaire libertarians continue to argue contemptuously against those who recognize the value of compromise. It's no wonder, really. As David Brin writes...
[Harry Browne] seemed puzzled when I stood up to suggest that this entire approach was based upon an unpleasantly smug assumption — that the American people are fools. ... Contempt is the food of ideologues. They crave it more than oxygen. All religious fanatics relish contempt for their infidel neighbors, who cannot see the Truth that they see.
...they are Fundamentalists, married to a single premise. If reality seems to diverge from that premise, it is only proof that Reality has it all wrong. (ref: their inalterable belief that humanity is unforgivably stupid) They believe, as Douglas Adams wrote, "The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate."
It seems to me that if you truly believe something should be achieved (ex: "society should be organized around Principle X"), then you have an obligation to work towards it, or to quit complaining that it has not yet obtained in reality. Contemptuous shrieking at those whose demand curves are even slightly less than vertical (and that is everybody) is not only counter-productive—it is hypocritical.
Not that anyone necessarily cares, but I agree wholeheartedly and my respect for Mr. Franks rose as a result of this post. Someone once called science something like the brutal murder of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
My only objection to this is the use of the word "compromise", as if one’s ideas could compromise with reality. Of course, they can’t—they have to surrender to it, or (preferably), embrace it. To do less is, as Mr. Franks wrote, fundamentalism.
Actually, David, I wrote the post. I suspect Dale might agree, but I wouldn’t presume to speak for him. I would hope that your respect for me could rise no further than it already is. However, to borrow your phrasing, this may be a case where my beautiful hypothesis is murdered by an ugly fact. :)
I’m a representative of the "left" insofar as I’m a proponent of human rights and I’m wary of abuse of power, whether by corporations or by the state; and I’m opposed to authoritarianism, whether by the right (fascism) or left (socialism). You can see, then, that there is common ground between libertarian thought and my own thinking, which is why I’ve started hanging out here—I do buy into some of your precepts, and I want to explore the limits of that. I’ve posted similar thoughts over at DailyKos, and responses there suggest there’s quite a lot of folks there that think along similar lines. Someone called us "libby libertarians", meaning I suppose that whereas most libertarians appear to have arrived from the right (emphasizing property rights), we come from the left (emphasizing human rights).
Above all, I am concerned about pragmatism: whatever ideas people advance—be they on blogs, in think tanks, or at a pub over beers—if they don’t work, they’re bunk. My definition "work" in this case is utilitarian: "the greatest good for the greatest number". I imagine that’s major flame bait, so I’ll don an asbestos suit and see what comes.
There’s also a failure to realize that you can compromise on your approach to governing without compromising your beliefs. Incrementalism makes sense in any system where you don’t have an absolute majority of legislative power. If your goal is to eliminate income taxes, then achieving a 1% decrease in taxes isn’t a failure, it’s a step in the right direction.
Not true. Many people would willingly forgo oxygen in certain circumstances. If you were underwater, with just one oxygen tank and two people, one person would have to forgo oxygen. What would you value more...your access to oxygen, or the life of the person with you? I’m guessing you can think of a few people for whom you’d give up the oxygen tank.
Up till your appearance, the leftward representatives have been shrill and irrational.
Praktike is good. Dannyboy was good, but he’s not been around in a while. There’s somebody else, though I can’t recall his name at the moment. But, yes, MK taints the pool. :)
While reading this today I was struck by the analogy of the libertarian goals as compared to personal fitness goals. If I desire to be of perfect body, but am currently wallowing in blubber, but I know what the perfect body is... and if I am unwilling to incrementally work toward acheiving that goal, I will NEVER acheive my goal. One must be able to take small measurable steps in order to achieve anything. The libertarians want to wake up tomorrow morning measuring in at 6’ 2", 195 lbs with 6% body fat. Ain’t gonna happen.
That goal in of itself would seem to work against concerns for human rights. It seems as if that philosophy could lead to the suppression of the rights of minority groups if it benefited the vast majority. After all, why not sacrifice a few in order to advance the many?
JWG— Right, so two wolves and a sheep should not vote on what to have for dinner. I’d argue that tyranny by the majority does not yield the greatest good for the greatest number because without protections of minorities from the majority, sooner or later almost everybody gets screwed. But clearly there are times when some minority may justifiably be harmed by the state for the good of all. As an example, an outbreak of a deadly infectious disease generally calls for quarantine of infected and possibly infected individuals, forcibly if necessary, which clearly violates their liberty. Do you have a better idea?
Most of the pro-libertarian arguments I’ve read implicitly rely on "the greatest good" by pointing to all the bad things that result from other forms of organization and the good things that devolve from greater liberty. After all, you have to convince people that this is something they want.
JWG— You’re right, of course. I should have emphasized the contagiousness and the vector by which its spread. AIDS is communicable through bodily fluids only, and does not survive well outside the human body at all. Thus its spread can be controlled without resorting to quarantine (theoretically, anyway). But what about smallpox, or a biological weapon, or some other highly contagious disease? I think you know that’s what I was driving at, but in any case it should be clear now.
"That is, is there anything for which increased cost would not induce any change in the level of demand?"
Perhaps oxygen.
"Not true. Many people would willingly forgo oxygen in certain circumstances. If you were underwater, with just one oxygen tank and two people, one person would have to forgo oxygen."
For a macroeconomic demand curve (as opposed the micro individual demand curve you describe) it’s still vertical.
Under this scenario, the price is "someone’s life" and the total market demand is that one oxygen tank.
An esoteric point to be sure, but that’s what blogs do best.
Some libertarians, including some involved in the Libertarian Party, do take an extreme "no compromise" position.
When the LP was founded, its initial documents describe a version of libertarianism based upon deduction from simple principles. While several formulations are used, "noninitiation of force" is an important one.
A few years after its founding, the statement of principles and platform were modified to remove any reference to limited government. While a bit vague for outsiders, it all pointed to an LP that promoted a no-tax limited government or else a private property anarchism as final end goals.
The platform was gradually modified to include most of Murray Rothbard’s positions on various issues. Isolationism, in particular, was added in the mid to late seventies.
The 1980 LP Presidential campaign was more-or-less run by Ed Crane, who current more-or-less runs the Cato Institute. That campaign had a program that was incrementalist. Most importantly, a key proposal was a 50% cut in income tax rates. (Keep in mind that that the winner of that election, Ronald Reagan was proposing a 30% cut and implemented a 25% cut after winning.)
There was a backlash after than campaign. Some of those who supported the "compromise" approach of Clark left the LP. That includes Ed Crane and some other folks currently at Cato. However, there are plenty of Libertarians who thought the Clark campaign had a good approach and continued in the LP. They were just a dissenting minority as the LP promoted a more radical approach.
While Murray Rothbard was a leader in the backlash against Clark (really Crane), and worked hard to get his "plumbline" into the platform, the LP never insisted on the immediate implementation of anarchism or tax abolition.
In 1988, Ron Paul, who had before (and since) been a Republican Congressman, was the LP candidate. Rothbard, the apostle of purity, was the ideological controller of the campaign. While immediate and deep cuts in government and taxes were proposed, there was no mention of tax abolition. During the eighties (before the Paul campaign,) the LP began to promote the immediate real of the income tax and cuts in government spending to balance the budget. Leaving aside social security, that would involve a reduction of the Federal government by about 90%. Of course, the LP supported some version of privatizing social security all along too. Paul’s campaign promoted that version of libertarianism.
And that is where the LP remains. The statement of principles and other various documents suggest that the LP is committed to carrying out the principle of noninitiation of force wherever it leads. No taxes, no right to call witnesses in court, no eminent domain at all, etc. The platform includes all sorts of implications of that approach, as well as something close to Rotbhard’s version of isolationist foreign policy.
The actual political program, however, is to abolish the income tax and cut out all spending that is not explicitly allowed by the U.S. Constitution. The remainder would be financed by existing excise taxes and customs duties. Ending the war on drugs (including heroin and cocaine,) immediately privatizing social security, round out the program. The sort of strict isolationism implied by the platform has not generally been promoted (like most all of the strict positions in the platform.) However, the LP opposed the first gulf war and all of the "humanitarian" interventions. The LP supported the war in Afghanistan, but opposed the recent war with Iraq.
While Rothbard got his version of isolation in the platform and it has never been removed, there was a dissenting minority from the start, and the view has never been accepted by the rank and file. It is clear, to me anyway, that most libertarians in the LP are very skeptical of foreign intevention. But they really aren’t willing to accept a strict principle prohibiting it if necessary to defend the U.S. from attack.
There have been several efforts to reform the LP to make it more incrementalist (and effective in the advocates view), as well as efforts to make the public pronouncements more consistent with the platform and various statements of abstract principles.
In 1993, a group called "Committee for a Libertarian Majority" was founded. It had several goals, but one of them was to get rid of the pledge. Membership in the national LP (and most state parties) requires that one sign a pledge that one doesn’t believe in or advocate the initiation of force. The meaning is somewhat controversial. Some argue that it means that one isn’t currently involved in organizing a revolution against the U.S. government. Others, however, argue that it is a pledge that one supports a version of libertarianism that entails deducing all positions from a principle that the initiation of force is always wrong. Nearly all of the planks of the LP platform are rationalized on that basis. The statement of principles includes positions on taxes and eminent domain that are consistent with that approach. The Committee for a Libertarian Majority (CLM) took that view and insisted that the LP should be open to other variants of libertarianism that aren’t quite so uncompromising and radical.
A second key goal was to change the platform from its current status as being the deductions from noninitiation of force on all sorts of issues and instead make it a limited set of reforms that could plausibly be implemented over the next 5 or 10 years. In other words, something like the kind of program that Clark had run on a decade before.
The CLM lost various floor votes. They required 2/3 to win and they didn’t quite get a majority.
Several reforms were implemented. Every platform plank is voted upon at every convention. (They nearly all win huge majorities, with abortion and children’s rights generating controversy.) A party program was developed. It has generally been shorter and a bit more moderate than the platform. It is approved by the national committee. Presidential candidates were required to develop a specific campaign platform that is approved (or not) by convention delegates.
While the pledge remains, party leaders tell a variety of stories as to what it means. No one has ever been expelled from the LP, or kept from joining, because their political views aren’t sufficiently radical.
Morever, the LP has encouraged the World’s Smallest Political Quiz, a version of the Nolan chart promoted by the Advocates of Self Government. That chart describes one as a libertarian if one answers in a "pro-liberty" way to some, but not all questions regarding "personal" and "economic" liberty. The rank and file have been encouraged to give those quizes and invite everyone who is in the libertarian "quadrant" to join up. There is no notion that such folks are deducing every position from noninitiation of force. If the LP was really limited to "true believers" in radical libertarianism, they would have to answer the right way on every question, and then answer many, many more questions in the right way.
In the 1996 Presidential campaign, Harry Browne ran on a program similar to that of Ron Paul in 1988. Abolish the income tax, cut out "unconstitional" spending, end drug prohibition, and privatize social security. Contitutional spending would be financed by existing excise taxes and custom’s duties.
There was a more radical candidate, advised by a Rothbardian. He proposed running on opposing the initiation of force, rejected Browne’s acceptance of some taxes, and also wanted to emphasize 2nd amendement rights. He received about 10% of the delegate votes. There was also a more moderate candidate. He didn’t campaign much and received next to no support.
As an aside, Irwin Schiff sought the LP nomination. Schiff believes that the income tax is illegal, and the IRS (and much of the government) tricks people into paying it. By simply refusing to pay and using the right arguments in court, one can avoid the tax personally, and lead to the collapse of the income tax. He received only a few percent of the delegate vote.
In the 2000 campaign, Browne ran for renomination on the same program. Don Gorman, a former New Hampshire legislator (and leader of what had been a tiny Libertarian caucus there,) ran against him on a more moderate program. To muddy the issues a bit, Gorman also proposed that the LP de-emphasize the Presidential campaign and instead focus on getting Libertarians into lower level offices immediately. Jacob Hornberger ran against Browne on a more radical program, attacking Browne’s compromises. Too muddy the waters, there were accusations of financial improprieties against the Browne campaign. Hornberger ran on that issue. Gorman agreed with Hornberger, but kept his campaign "positive." Browne won a majority, but there was a large dissenting minority. What motivated them is hard to determine.
After the 2000 campaign, there was a Maintream Libertarian Caucus. Its approach was similar to the old Committee for a Libertarian Majority. The focus was winning (or getting a lot more votes and not losing so horribly) on an incremental program. There was also a notion that it was essential that candidates campaign hard and not just put their name up for an office that is way beyond their ability to plausibly contest. Some Libertarian public officials were involved. The 2000 Vice Presidential candidate, who was the former mayor of a smallish California city, was a supporter.
In the 2004, campaign, Gary Nolan ran on the old Browne program, (much like the old Ron Paul program.) He was the frontrunner and was opposed by Michael Badnarik. For the first time in decades (or maybe ever,) a candidate, Badnarik, promised to run on the LP platform! However, his actual campaign wasn’t about noninitiation of force, but rather about the U.S. Constitution. He charged people money to take a class on the Constitution. Anyone who cared to find out would discover that he was a patriot tax protester like Irwin Schiff (who lost the LP nomination so badly in 1996.)
Late in the campaign, Aaron Russo entered. He ran on a program of legalizing medical marijuana, cutting taxes and spending, repealing the patriot act, getting out of Iraq. He also emphasized stopping illegal immigration. There was more, including replacing the income tax with a sales tax and abolishing the Fed and returning to a gold standard. But the first four issues were emphasized. The immigration issue came up again and again. And the other stuff was on the website but not major issues.
Immigration is important because the "hardcore" position is that immigration restrictions are an initiation of force. However, there is controversy even among those libertarians who claim to be completely uncompromising devotee’s of principle. Highlighting that issue for the LP nomination would be like emphasing abortion rights.
Russo’s "major" issues were actually very moderate for the LP compared to what Browne had run on in 1996 and 2004. Russo, however, took a very alarmist view of current political conditions, claiming that a draft was immeninent and that the patriot act would destroy all personal freedom. He had a radical demeanor when promoting his relatively moderate program.
Anyway, because of negative campaigning between Nolan and Russo, and the notion that Badnarik would lose on the first ballot and his supporters would need to be courted for the second ballot, a surprising result occured. Nolan lost the first ballot and endorsed Badnarik—who won. Hardly anyone knew that Badnarik was one of those tax-patriot nuts—including many of his first ballot supporters. Nolan supporters were especially remorseful, since they nominated this unknown in order to stop the evil Russo. (Russo supporters just lost.) Badnarik ran on a program similar to that of Browne and Ron Paul. He didn’t promote his tax patriot notions during the campaign.
Today, there is a Libertarian Reform Caucus seeking to make the platform incremental. There is "groundsupLibertarians" who focus on getting Libertarins into public office now—generally local nonpartisan office like town council or school boards. There is some support for incrementalism there as well.
The notion that the LP promotes uncompromising positions based upon simple principles is false. There are documents that suggest that approach. But while the actual program has been very radical, it remains a "compromise" relative to the pure, hardcore approach outlined in the statement of principles and the platform.
The dominant faction of the LP has for decades welcomed anyone to join the LP who will pay the dues. Marketing efforts generally promote membership to people who fit in the "libertarian quadrant" of the Nolan Chart. That is, they generally want more personal and economic freedom. LP publicity material doesn’t lambast the founding fathers or leading libertarian economists like Milton Friedman for being unprincipled sell-outs. Actually, they tend to celebrate them!
Presidential campaigns, of course, are really the key "marketing program" and they are aimed at appealing to the more radical voters in that libertarian quadrant.
Reform efforts to clean up the various "dogmatic" documents have failed so far. And no candidate promoting an incrementalist program has been able to win the LP nomination for President since Ed Clark in 1980. (Well, unless the increment is about 90% cut in the federal goverment over the next four years.)
But efforts at reform continue. Notice that there hasn’t been a plausibly libertarian candidate for the Republican nomination for President since Barry Goldwater in 1964.
