Why I Fight

On August 15, 2008, the day that I am writing this piece, I made the decision that I was going to be writing my opinion column on Associated Content every day rather than sporadically. My broader goal is to at some point to enter the realm of professional libertarian activism altogether. So what exactly is it that drives me? A lot of friends and acquaintances of mine already wonder why it is that I spend so much time and energy on politics and why I am planning on spending a good deal more, and there is no doubt that a good number of people who would probably find it to be a foolish obsession. I must say that I do not consider this to be an obsession, nor a "game" as so many often refer to it. Allow me to explain why it is that I exert so much of my energy into libertarian activism.

First of all, I don't do this just because I'm some wonk or a junkie who wants to be the next Tim Russert; I do not do this because I enjoy politics. Even though I was deeply enamored in electoral politics for a long time, in the past year the attention that I have paid to the presidential race has dwindled from the past two elections to the point where I don't really think that I spend much more time taking it all in than the average person with limited political interest. To me, fighting for the freedom philosophy amounts to more than just winning elections, in fact I don't care about winning elections or taking power in the first place. Unlike Democrats and Republicans, true libertarians have never cared about how many seats they hold in the legislature or how much power we have to transform society, in fact, libertarianism is unlike any other political philosophy in that it does not have a final all-encompassing utopia. Additionally, I do not fight for libertarianism because it is in my own self-interest to do so; even if I do believe that a more libertarian society would benefit me in many ways, not every aspect of libertarianism would. I am not a gun-owner but I still fight for the right to keep and bear arms. I am not affected by the estate tax and in all honesty I think that most of the people who are really don't need any more money, but I still work for its repeal nonetheless. Even if I would never consider using currently illegal drugs, I still fight for the end of the drug war. Most importantly, I fight for the end of imperialistic military intervention not just in Iraq, but everywhere else even when such occurrences have little effect on my daily life. I fight for my own rights but I fight for other people's rights as well, even rights that I would probably never exercise and even rights that I would hope that other people would never actually exercise even though I oppose all laws pertaining to peaceful, voluntary behavior.

In order to understand why it is that I spend so much time fighting for the libertarian cause, one must first and foremost understand the ethics underlying libertarianism. In order to join the Libertarian Party, one has to sign a pledge that states, "I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals." Most people would probably agree that it is immoral for one to initiate the use of physical force, fraud, or coercion and that the only time that it would be appropriate for them to do so would be under the circumstances in which somebody else did or was doing the same thing to them. The problem is that most people do not extend this prohibition to government, whereas libertarians boldly do so. As far as libertarians are concerned, it is hypocritical to say that it is a moral statement that a government, especially one that claims to be based on the "will of the people," may indeed initiate force to achieve political or social goals whereas it is immoral for private citizens to do the same. For all the statists' use of straw men like "state sovereignty" and "social contracts" they still cannot get past the fact that government force always represents the will of somebody, whether a despot, an aristocracy, or a democratic majority; so how does hiding behind the state justify one's actions? The answer is that it does not, or else all crimes committed with a weapon other than one's bare hands are justifiable; certainly the crime of hiring a hitman would be, since the state more or less is a hitman to do the will of whoever holds political power.

In his magnum opus The Ethics Of Liberty, the late libertarian philosopher and economist Murray Rothbard outlined the general philosophical theory underlying the libertarian application of the non-aggression principle. While I once held to a more utilitarian libertarian position that was more or less a muddled combination of "fiscal conservatism" and "social liberalism," Rothbard's work showed me the importance of both philosophy and ideological consistency. Now, let it be known that libertarianism does not consist of the entirety of my ethical philosophy; in fact the libertarian non-aggression principle is only one rule of many. I find the positive (obligatory) implications of "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" of great importance much like the negative (prohibitionary) non-aggression principle, but even all these things considered they only form the basis, rather than the entirety of my ethics. Indeed, if the libertarian non-aggression principle is only one part of my ethical system, then why do I spend so much more time promoting it than I do promoting the other portions of it?

The reason for my central focus on libertarianism is multi-faceted. First of all, the Golden Rule is already an integral part of popular morality even if it is not practiced consistently. Indeed, people admit that they are wrong when they violate the Golden Rule, however, I have met very few statists who admit that the methods they seek to use to further their ideal society are immoral. Additionally, I don't need to do much to convince society that the non-aggression principle is a good thing, but it is a much bigger task to convince people that it must apply just as much to the political realm as it does to the social and personal. I must also make note of the fact that I see most other portions of my ethics as being something that has to be practiced at an individual level whereas the non-aggression principle must be something that applies to all of society. I no more expect that everybody will follow the non-aggression principle than they will the Golden Rule (which is why it is the non-aggression principle rather than the non-violence principle), however, one cannot create a legal system that obligates everybody to follow the Golden Rule (and even if they could I wouldn't support it) principle, but one can create a legal system built around the non-aggression principle. Finally, and most importantly, I see the non-aggression principle being more egregiously violated than any other portion of my ethical system. Some things, like not being charitable enough for instance, are passive ethical violations whereas violating the non-aggression principle is an active ethical violation and covers the basis of a majority of the major active ethical violations. The simple fact is that there is, as far as I see it, no more of a pressing cause than this.

In the end I think it all breaks down to the fact that my personality is simply one that sees evil as something that must be confronted, and ignorance of the non-aggression principle constitutes a primary evil in our society. I believe that when one refuses to fight against evil, one is doing no better than fostering it. The state is the primary aggressor in our world and there are very few who oppose its aggressions consistently, and as a result I am obligating to fight ever the harder against it. If I simply believed in libertarian principles and then did nothing to actively promote them, I would simply be allowing the statist agenda to move forward. Even if I alone can do little it still does not justify me not doing anything since in the end my inactivity would still be one less person fighting for the cause. Indeed, imagine a world in which the defenders of liberty simply sat with their ideas in their heads and never put them to paper or took part in activism; even if our nation has much less freedom than it should and certainly much less than the Founders would have wanted us to have after two hundred and thirty years, there is no doubt that it would be significantly less free had the liberty lovers of the past simply thought and believed rather than written and acted. I really see no difference in an inactive libertarian and one who does not believe in liberty at all, because how much can one really believe in something if one isn't willing to make sacrifices now to further the end result later? The answer is clearly, "not much."

All these things being said, it still ignores the fact that I have believed for the past two years that on a fundamental utilitarian level considering the happiness and well being of humanity, a libertarian society would be a great improvement over this one. I believe firmly that a libertarian America would be much wealthier than statist America, have much more technological innovation than statist America, be a lot safer and respected internationally than statist imperialist America, foster a citizenry that takes more responsibility for themselves than the citizens of statist America, be a lot more tolerant and diverse than statist America, and above all else respect the rights of individuals not to be aggressed against by government moreso than statist America. As far as my place is concerned, I think that it would be a lot easier for me to obtain prosperity in an authentically free economy than in our semi-free one of today, and above all else, I could be left alone by the state.

Some people would be quick to point out that America is already a much freer country than most others have been in history. They are correct that there are and certainly have been nations with a much more restrictive and oppressive systems than America, but does that mean that America is currently free? In our nation you do not have a fundamental right to private property, it is only a privilege granted by governments in the name of economic prosperity and increasing your tax base; our own Supreme Court has ruled that municipalities can seize private property to turn over to commercial interests if they deem that the commercial interest would generate more prosperity and tax dollars than the presence of your property. In our nation there is no upper limit to the amount of money that our government can confiscate from you in the form of taxation; if the legislature voted that way they could take 100% of your income and it would by no means be considered outside their legal powers even if it would upset a lot of people. Our government has in the past, enslaved citizens to use as cannon fodder in its foreign wars and could very well do the same thing again if the neocons finally take our foreign policy to the point of no return. They have for years regulated the chemicals that you can put into your own body in the name of "combating drug abuse", but now they have extended this power and increasingly regulate other personal habits in the name of "public health." Some people think that more things need to be regulated and banned, and the government would do so immediately if the polls allowed them. Some people want to control what you read, see, and hear in the name of "traditional family values." Other people want to increase the government's power to detain, torture, and hold without trial or hearing all in the name of "national security;" don't even get me started on what they've justified with the quip "it's for the children." You may think our government's current regulations and interventions into people's personal lives are an okay thing, you might even want a little more in some areas, but the question you have to ask yourself is when are they going to come for you? For a long time I accepted drug prohibition as an acceptable part of society, but when I realized that if they had that power then they had the power to take away my steak and my fried chicken, I realized that it wasn't such a good thing. There are many Christian conservatives who want to ban pornography, but what would they say if liberals banned their religion for not being "tolerant" enough? You can believe it will never happen, but the state is eventually going to get to you as long as you let it get to other people.

Pastor Martin Niemoller famously wrote of the Nazi regime, "They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Today we might write, "They came first for the tax evaders, and I didn't speak up because I paid my taxes. Then they came for the online poker players, and I didn't speak up because I didn't play poker. Then they came for the smokers, and I didn't speak up because I didn't smoke. Then they came for the gun owners, and I didn't speak up because I didn't own a gun. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Thank God we are not anywhere near the point of the Nazi regime, but from my reprisal we can see that we inch closer and closer to a more regulated existence. It might be the little things now, but the little things add up to medium things. Maybe they will round up parents who educate their children at home? Maybe they will start banning certain "politically incorrect" words like they once banned criticism of the King and profanity on Sunday? After that it could eventually get to the big things and then we could be living in Niemoller's world again. Some call my crazy for suggesting this, but honestly, where do you want the regulations to stop? The little limitations on our behavior grow and grow, so when will they quit growing? I cannot think of any government that was given more and more power that simply voluntarily decided that there was a point where they would not exercise it anymore. As much as some people ridicule the "slippery slope argument," slippery slopes are quite real.

The whole point that I am trying to make is that even as bad as some of things that our government is doing now, the scariest thing is the powers they have. Even if they don't interfere in our lives as much as they could, they still reserve the right to do so. I ask you one thing, even if they don't use all the sovereignty they have, does that make you any more sovereign and they any less? No. Additionally, if there is a certain area where they have the power to intervene then when do the interventions stop? A lot of people who might otherwise be liberty-minded think that my support for drug legalization goes "too far;" however, if we can establish that government has a right to interfere with your personal choices in the name of making you a better, healthier, and more moral person then why can' t they just extend that power a little bit more? I have heard many a small government conservative has complain about "nanny state" laws and proposals like seat belt laws, smoking bans, attempts to regulate fatty food etc. but nonetheless they think laws against marijuana and prostitution are okay; so why is I wrong to protect us from ourselves and busybody us into healthier lifestyles in one area and not in others? I would like to go a little bit more radical here and examine the issue of taxation and wealth redistribution. If government has the right to tax us in order to redistribute wealth then what exactly stops them from establishing communism? Maybe the public will, but in the end there is no legal limitation that would stop communism from being implemented, and if this is the case then are we really against communism or is it just that it wouldn't be "practical" at this time? These raise a lot of moral dilemmas and in the end reveal that there really is no end to the statism as long as we don't oppose it consistently. The same thing applies with the focus that we must have; we cannot only focus on the issues that have meaning to our lives personally and leave issues that don't affect us in the dust because in the end they will all eventually lead to us.

I don't think that I could have given a better introduction to why I do what I do than this piece. I would refer anybody who wonders what drives my libertarian impulses to what I have written here. If somebody really wants to get into my head, understand my thought process, and to understand why I believe in the principles I believe in and why I spend so much time and energy fighting for them, it is all here. I fight because I believe in the non-aggression principle. I fight because I believe in confronting evil head on. I fight because I believe in the importance of ideological consistency. I fight because I believe that all issues are part of a cohesive whole that touches every individual, including ourselves, whether we like it or not. I fight because I believe that free markets and personal liberty will create a much more ideal society than the one we have now. These are the ideals that I believe in and this is why I fight.