What Is A Libertarian, Anyway?

Over the years (over 40 of 'em, in my case), I've bumped into advocates of quite a number of varying opinions as to just what libertarianism is. I've run into even more opinions of what libertarianism is by non-libertarians. Particularly, by conservatives.

We're crazy, drug-addled ne'er do wells who only want drugs legalized.....and those individuals do, in fact, exist. We're anarchists, desiring to tear down all the country's institutions and traditions.....those exist, as well. There are conservatives, who have moved away from the GOP in favor of capitalism and less intrusion by government into our lives.....I've spoken to many. There are leftists who've studied a little economics and see the flaws in the Democrat welfare state......yes, indeed. There are would-be mountain men, who just don't want to be involved at all, and others who would disappear into the Rockies if they only dared. Perhaps there are some living that way, even as we meeker fellows contemplate how to minimize local, state and federal theft of an ever larger portion of our productivity.

Libertarianism doesn't necessarily embrace every one of these ways of life. If I may, allow me to direct you toward an essay that's going to be the first chapter of a book by L Neil Smith and his daughter Rylla Cathryn Smith. The essay, called What Libertarians Believe, can be found here.

Since Mr Smith is the individual who, with the exception of Ayn Rand, has influenced me more than anyone else with his work, I don't hesitate to make his ideas known, to the best of my ability.

Libertarian is very simple, really. It's an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the individual. It's a recognition that each of us owns his life and all the products thereof. It's simply an absence of initiated force.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is not a libertarian.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Addendum:

In my haste to finish this entry and hit the sack last night, I neglected to mention what Smith calls the Zero Aggression Principle, (ZAP) which was first (in Smith's recollection) penned by Thomas Jefferson, and in mine, by Ayn Rand. ZAP is central to any real definition of libertarianism and required for any kind of a rational society. See Smith's essay, in which he explains ZAP more fully.

The Continuing Self Destruction of the Libertarian Party.....Continued

If I get all this correctly, it all started with a Resolution, one version of which can be found here, to be put to a vote during the National Convention, which calls on the federal government--the FBI, specifically--to ante up more resources for fighting child pornography--by spending less on adult victimless crimes. Sounds ok.....if you're stupid. While I might write out my reasons for saying so at some point, Reason Number One is: Never ask the federal government to increase spending on anything. They'll spend more money all right, and the result will be more child pornography.

The LP national office then sent out a press release, which can be found here. One candidate , Mary Ruwart, apparently expressed something negative about the wisdom of enjoining such a fringe issue (I think all rational individuals can agree to detest child pornography), and was called to task by Mark Schreiber, campaign manager for another candidate, Wayne Allyn Root, who apparently implied that Ms Ruwart was not opposed to child pornography. Writes Ms Ruwart:

Consequently, you can understand my shock when Mark Schreiber, "quoted" me as saying that "pedophilia is OK" in my book, Short Answers to the Tough Questions, this weekend at the Indiana LP Convention. Mr. Scribner is the campaign manager for LP presidential hopeful Wayne Allyn Root.

You can find her full comment here.

Now, you see why I continue to think the Libertarian Party is coming apart at the seams. LP has always held that its most important function is to try to educate the electorate that we'd all be better off with less government, not more; with more freedom and personal responsibility, not less. Running candidates is, rationally, more to allow the candidates to reach cameras and microphones that would otherwise be denied, to the purpose of letting the candidates make the case for smaller government to a larger audience than would otherwise be possible.

No rational person ever really thought that LP would elect a President. A few candidates for local offices have been elected, and that's great, but a President of the United States? C'mon!

All that aside, the detestable charge allegedly levelled by Mr Schreiber at Ms Ruwart, and his boss' failure to both apologize and sanction Schreiber, is just the kind of filthy politics we don't need in the LP. I guess my reaction will be to state that I will not vote for Mr Root, and that I will not return to the LP as long as either Mr Root or Mr Schreiber are involved.

I suggest that LP not nominate Mr Root for President, or for any other office.

There are liars, damned liars, and politicians.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

The Continuing Self-Destruction of the Libertarian Party

For starters, I'll have to admit to a degree of ignorance regarding the recent events within my party of choice for these past thirty-five years. Though I've almost always voted for LP candidates come election day, I haven't belonged, nor been particularly active in the Party since after Roger MacBride's candidacy in 1976. Neither did I have the time and money to go chasing around the country to attend meetings and conventions, nor did ol' career builder me have the inclination to do so.

Standing at a long arm's length from the Party for these past many years, I often read of such things as political infighting, rule breaking and financial abuses in the upper offices. There were a number of embarrassing fiascoes highlighted by the attempted Presidential candidacy of radio talker Howard Stern, and the virtual "food fight" that was that year's nomination convention.

I was always a fan of the "Pledge," the signing of which was a a requirement for many years. It's also been controversial for almost as many years. many so-called libertarians in the Party wanted to do away with the Pledge, to make the Party more inclusive.

It was a deal breaker for me. If a prospective member can't honestly take that Pledge, then he's no libertarian. Period. Having recently thought of recommitting myself to the Party, I've heard that they, in fact, have withdrawn the requirement to sign the Pledge. Until that decision is reconsidered, I won't be involving myself.

I will still, however, continue to vote for LP candidates I find significantly more palatable than those of the two branches of the Boot On Your Neck Party.

A recent event has come to my attention, though, which will require some study and thought. Seems one of the candidates for the nomination for President has allegedly made some snide distortions of a statement of another candidate, regarding child pornography. This, we cannot have.

Candidates vying for the right to run for any office under the label, "Libertarian Party" must argue their differences honestly and honorably. When I find whether or not this candidate has distorted the truth, I'll make it public in a subsequent post. Anyone who will stoop that low to secure the party's nomination belongs with the Democrats or Republicans, where that sort of thing is normal.

Politics, when there's money to be stolen, is the home of thieves.

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Agreement and Disagreement

One of the things I like about Liberty magazine is that, other than its commitment to libertarianism (precise definition to be determined later), the editors have taken no sides regarding the various contraversies within the movement. the writing of any individual can be accepted into the pages of the magazine, as long as it's well written and makes a coherent point.

Thus, there are pro and con articles on objectivism, the Libertarian Party, Friedman and Rothbard, to mention a few. They occasionally publish a fiction story and I think I even recall a poem or two. One can send in a comment on a news story to be printed in the Reflections column or just a clipping that may be placed in Terra Incognita.

It's for this reason, among a few others, that I decided to attend Liberty Lives!, the 2006 Liberty Editors Conference, in Las Vegas earlier this month.

There were several talks by individual speakers and several panel discussions on a variety of topics.

Mark Skousen tried to define the optimal size of government. I'm not sure that I got the entire program, but it started with a stipend from government, to be paid to every American, I guess out of the general fund, to take the place of all welfare and subsidy. While it might actually be less expensive than the outrageous hodge-podge we have now, it still requires that the funds first be extorted from the productive, with the unavoidable "administrative" rakeoff that always seems to serve to cause the "administators" to become the wealthiest among us.

My comment is that whatever government ought to exist, must exist in the absence of the initiation of force by said government. In other words, the only government that ought be tolerated is that which finances itself on a purely voluntary basis and never initiates the use of force.

Skousen returned Saturday morning to speak about Benjamin Franklin, and some of his lesser known activities to aid the cause of the American Revolution.

David Friedman gave the keynote address, in which he spoke about the upcoming changes, for better and for worse, to be caused by new technologies we'll soon be seeing. Some of it, to be employed by government and corporate entities, will increase surveillance of us all and make personal privacy more and more difficult. On the other hand, some of that technology will also serve to help us secure our financial privacy and to make interpersonal communication more private. Friedman, in his professorial style, admonishes us to become familiar with this new technology as it becomes available, and to use it to our best advantage.

Friedman also appeared in a few of the panel discussions, including "How to Fix the Drug Laws" (repeal them), The Future of Liberty, Libertarianism and Religion, and others.

Another highlight for me was the appearance of Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. I read their book Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach (Warner Books, 1982) back when it was new, and have thought they're on the right track nutritionally since then. I've also appreciated the fact that they're in a constant battle with the evil FDA for our right to ingest that which we, each individual, wish. Ocasionally, David does slay the giant!

Pearson and Shaw gave a talk they called "One Million Deaths by FDA," in which they described one of the battles they had with the incompetent regulatory agency, regarding the right to publicize the beneficial characteristics of fish oil supplements. The one million deaths refers to the number of heart failure deaths that might have been prevented had fish oil advocates been able to publicize their findings earlier. The rule was, as I understand it, that fish oil supplements were on the market, but it was illegal to publicize the findings of studies that show the dramatic effects fish oil supplements have toward preventing sudden death heart attacks.

Jo Ann Skousen moderated a panel on Liberty in Film, in which the panelists described some of their favorite movies, and why they believe they have libertarian messages.

Saturday evening held the climax of the conference. It started with a very tasty Mexican food buffet dinner. Following dinner was a tribute/memorial to the life of Bill Bradford, the founder and late publisher of Liberty, during which several individuals described their friendship and experiences with Bradford during his life.

The evening was topped off by an hour of comedy by Tim Slagle. I only knew Slagle from the several short bits he's had published in the Reflections column in the magazine. They are always witty, funny and make good libertarian points. His stand-up routine was similar, but with a lot more belly-laughs. He made fun of vegetarians, "why don't carnivores have simulated salads made from lettuce-flavored meat?"and marijuana, with a little on the benefits of DDT. His humor was of the sort that one doesn't have to be drunk to find funny.

Debbie didn't attend the conference except for the Saturday night dinner program (which she also enjoyed), preferring to check out the various hotels and casinos on the Vegas Strip. She actually won a little money!

As for me, I had a great time, met several new and interesting people and learned a lot about one of my favorite monthly reads!

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

Settling In

I never mowed lawns as a youth in my neighborhood; I was a newsie. 'Twas many years before I learned the joy of mowing. I've lived in apartments most of my life, and generally, my life has been lived more outside home than in it.

I did buy a house in Costa Mesa many years ago, but I was young, a biker and had spending money. I spent most of my non-working time riding up and down the length of California, and going to libertarian meetings, such as the many-years-defunct Libertarian Alternative, where a couple of dozen or so libertarians got together monthly to plot, plan and execute getting libertarian ideas into print and on the air.

The Libertarian Alternative was the brainchild of Charlie Barr, who moderated the proceedings and kept the group of very disparate individuals, who had only the then-somewhat-nebulous notion of libertarianism in common, on mission. Herding cats, as it were. No easy task, but Charlie handled it well. I hear he's escaped the Stalag and is now living in Las Vegas. Libertarian Alternative has been turned by party member Mark Selzer, into a publicity seeking arm of the California Libertarian Party. He produces a tv series for public access tv in several markets.

Back to the message, I spent a lot of my time in the kind of pastimes that kept me away from home , and regarded home as "a box in which to keep my stuff" (thanks for the line, George).

Debbie and I bought this house in 1993. We moved in, at the time, with Debbie's mom Maxine, having decided that this was a good place to live in the LA area. 'Twas more Debbie's decision than mine, but I soon decided it was a good one, for reasons I mentioned here.

We left in 1994, because of the quake, while awaiting repairs to the place. We decided we also liked Orange County (and, I was working there at the time) so we stayed and placed this house on the rental market. It worked out well.

A few weeks ago, when our not-so-conscientious property manager told us that our tenant was bailing, we made the decision to move back. Because of the evil tax code, it seems we're required to occupy the place for two years (to legally change the property from an income property back into a private residence) to avoid the theft of a goodly portion of the proceeds from the eventual sale of the house, by the despicable drones of the feral government.

So, we're here. Death, where is thy sting? (thanks, Bill).

In spite of the oppressive heat of this part of the year, I'm enjoying being here. I'd partially forgotten the charms, and the negatives. The streets are more crowded than OC, they seem narrower and buildings in commercial areas are smaller and closer together. Parking lots are smaller, when they exist at all. The parking enforcement cops (meter maids) are neither lovely, nor compassionate.

Yet, in many ways, the Valley has many of the positives of New York City. Wonderful restaurants, including some near-New York quality delis. Little theaters. Funky shops along Ventura Boulevard. I could, at the risk of boring y'all to tears, go on.

I've been helping Debbie tear out the atrocious landscaping left (against the rules laid out in the lease) by our most recent tenant. Debbie's been finding stuff in boxes and setting up the kitchen and the bathrooms, etc, and I've been unpacking my books and VHS/DVD collection, and setting up my library/office.

Back when we originally bought the place, I acquired a reel mower, being more familiar with that kind than any other, and not desiring to deal with temperamental power mowers. Besides, being a poster child for the government's unreasonably intrusive, futile and stupid anti-obesity campaign, I can use the exercise.

I mowed the lawn several times with the mower, back in those days, and found it agreeable, and so I decided that I'd continue the method, now that we're back.

What better day to get out there and mow the lawn with a reel push mower than Labor Day! I got out there at about 8AM (to beat the heat) and got the job done in a little over an hour, including a short break to give a few peanuts to neighborhood tree squirrels.

It's good to be back!

Remember, VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENT!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California

A Standing Army

The job of the Army is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Prior to the end of WWII, the US didn't keep much of an army, except during wartime. The army was just enough to keep the bases up and the brass polished. When it was decided to send American troops to Europe to fight in WWI, we had to first get an army recruited and trained. They were trained by Indian fighters. Once over there, they had to be retrained to fight less effectively, to take more casualties, in the European tradition.

When FDR was finally able to get us into WWII, we again had to scramble to get an army together. After that war, I guess Truman decided we'd better keep an army ready just in case.

Well, just in case has happened many times since the end of WWII which, during the Viet Nam undeclared war, prompted many to observe correctly that, "if the government has a large standing army, the government will find uses for it."

There was Korea, the Cuban Blockade, Viet Nam, Grenada, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again. Tell me if I've forgotten any. The earlier wars in this group were fought within the envelope of what Generals wistfully refer to as The Cold War. I'll have to remember to ask some of my biker buds how cold they thought it was during the battles at Pork Chop Hill and Tet.

Every one of these were undeclared wars. Seems that when we have a huge standing army with nothing to do but train to kill people and break things, declaring war somehow went out of fashion. When we want a war now, we just send the troops in and they start shooting.

L Neil Smith, my favorite sci-fi writer and world-class libertarian thinker, wrote an article that proposes a solution. He recognizes that it'll be hard to get Americans to decide to implement his idea, as do I, but we'll strive for it. Anything less will, at best, slow our motion in the direction toward totalitarianism.

I've long thought that, if the Roman Catholic church can squeek by with 10% titheing (we know how impoverished they are), the US federal government is getting way too much of our hard earned cash. That, of course, is not hot news to anybody.

My proposal, which falls in line with Neil's, is that government not be allowed to forcibly tax anyone. A radical proposal? Read the US Constitution. Prior to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, the US government was not allowed to tax individuals. Scholars disagree as to whether or not the Sixteenth was properly adopted (I rather think corners were cut), and we all know that government was far more respectful of the rights of individuals before it started snooping into our finances and our professional lives.

The federal government even conducted the evil and very expensive War between the States without compulsory taxation of individuals.

Needless to say though, in the absence of compulsory taxation, there are many things the feds would have to stop doing. Most of the general population might be willing to tithe five or ten percent to government, but not much more than that.

One of the things government would have to do away with is the big standing army. One of the few proper functions of government, according to the Constitution, is to protect the country from foreign invasion. A small army with a well-thought-out set of state reserve militiae, would satisfy that function.

Doing away with the thousands of unConstitutional gun control laws, that every individual has the full right to defend himself against attackers, foreign and domestic, would help even more. Even the most severely self-deluded invaders will recognize the difficulty of seizing territory, a few square feet at a time, from millions of armed individuals.

There is one Amendment to the Constitution I'd like to see. It'd take away all the incentive for the intergovernment discussions that lead to war: The federal government must be barred from any diplomatic relations with other nations. The federal government should restrict itself to maintaining a skeleton military, a system of courts and police. While I have no quarrel with the military sending agents out to gather intelligence from potential foes, the word should be defense.

Diplomatic relations can and should be initiated and maintained by international buyers and sellers of commodities. Who better? I'd bet my savings, could the truth be shown, that Shell, Standard, BP and other oil companies would not have made such a mess of American-Arab relations had government not been involved. And when I say not involved, I mean that each entire transaction is initiated, negotiated and consummated entirely by the oil company reps and the Arabs in control of oil sales. No government.

No government! What a concept!

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California