Topic: Political Parties
What a Freedom Party Would be Like The Libertarian Party was founded on a narrow definition of liberty. Here, we envision what a freedom party would be like, if based on a broader definition of freedom.by C.S. Milsted, Jr.
(libertarian)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
In my last essay I explained that freedom is a much broader concept than liberty as defined by libertarians. The libertarian movement is thus much smaller than a potential freedom movement. A freedom party might well have a large enough voter pool to actually win significant elections. With success as a realistic possibility, realistic people might well join such a party even in its start-up stages. A freedom party might well grow one or two orders of magnitude larger than the Libertarian Party at its zenith, and do so rather rapidly.
Judging by some of the responses to my previous essay, a victorious freedom party might not be a happy event for some of you. Imperfect liberty in actuality is inferior to the dream of perfect liberty or so it seems. But perhaps I misjudge knee-jerk responses for hearts' true feeling. The Left has certainly earned a negative knee-jerk response from liberty lovers of late, and my description of freedom contained some liberal concerns and arguments. Furthermore, my claim that a freedom movement would be larger than the libertarian movement remains to be fully proven. Since the burden of proof rests clearly on my shoulders for this assertion, it would be wrong of me to continue pushing for the Libertarian Party to be this freedom party I imagine. I made the offer; it was rejected; so I step aside from the LP and dream of starting a new freedom-oriented party when time and resources permit. So be it.
I write on such things here at Nolan Chart, since the invitation to discuss is open to all. If libertarians, liberals, conservatives and others are in this forum, there should be freedom lovers in the mix as well. Some of the comments indicated this is the case. Furthermore, some libertarians may find these ideas interesting as well, after a few repetitions desensitize defensive reflexes enough to allow reflective cogitation. Cogitation is not conviction; however, you may still rationally refuse my strategies, either as less practical than I advertise or as simply unacceptable.
Would a freedom party be acceptable to you if it truly could beat Democrats and Republicans in congressional races? To answer this question, let's envision what a freedom party would be like. What would be its platform? What would be its target demographics? What would be its tone? Many variations are possible. I'll describe a few.
If you are in jail, you are not free, so a freedom party would definitely call for ending the War on Drugs. It would also take on wars against other so-called victimless crimes. However, a freedom party would probably not call for the absolute unregulated legalization that libertarians crave. Such would not maximize freedom. Victimless crimes do have victims, sometimes. Some voluntary activities reduce freedom in the long run. This is obvious to those who study real humans in the field vs. homo praxeologicus.
Consider recreational drugs. Some of the harder drugs are quite addictive. To be hooked is to lose freedom if you are susceptible. If you find the benefits of hard drug use to outweigh the cost, then you should be free to make that choice. But this should be a rational choice, not a drunken whim or a momentary concession to peer pressure. A freedom party might advocate Timothy Leary's idea of requiring a license to do hard drugs. You have to prove you know what you are getting into before making such a potentially calamitous decision. (Marijuana, BTW, is not a hard drug. Its short term effects are easily reversible. Marijuana should thus be outright legal by these criteria.)
Similar arguments apply to prostitution. Becoming a prostitute is a serious decision, with irreversible long term consequences. One should not be pushed into such a career from momentary need or social pressure. Licensure with hoops to jump through is a net gain for freedom. The same goes for buying the services of an infected prostitute. Inspection and labeling protect many future options at the cost of momentary inconvenience.
The freedom to engage in such adult recreations need not include the freedom to engage in said recreations everywhere. Many people want to live and raise their children away from these influences, myself included. This is an example of freedom from everyone else. And yes, this is a fixed-sum freedom, which thus makes libertarians cringe, but it is a very important freedom. A freedom party could straddle this dilemma by declaring that such activities should be legalized, or not, at the community level. We already have working models: alcohol and casino gambling. Marijuana might be treated like alcohol and prostitution and hard drugs like casino gambling.
We can do better by going after the big subsidies for the old money rich: deficit spending and pyramid retirement schemes. If you are rich, you get richer by lending and investing. This positive feedback widens the gap between rich and poor. Adam Smith pointed out two centuries ago that as capital accumulates, real rates of return drop as a bigger pool of capital chases the same pool of investment opportunities. Keynesian economics is a program to stifle this process by consuming "excess" savings (budget deficits), discouraging savings (Social Security), and artificially creating investment opportunities (government funded basic research). Keynesian economics is regressive! Talking point: Obama increased subsidies for the rich with his stimulus plan.
Alas, balancing the budget and paying off existing retirees will require taxes, even if we cut spending dramatically. So a freedom party cannot honestly promise major tax cuts in the near term. It can promise simplification. But it cannot call for the regressive Fair Tax [sic!] or one of the other Republican plans for handouts for the rich. That's right, I said handouts. The rich consume more government services than is generally appreciated by libertarians and conservatives. Consider:
Bubba makes $50K/year cleaning drain lines. Thurston collects $50K/year in interest and dividends from a variety of low risk investments. Who is receiving more government services? Who is receiving more contract enforcement? Who is receiving more protection of property? If government charged for basic services, Bubba would pay fewer taxes. Bubba has all of his capital on his truck, protected by poop and pipe wrenches. Bubba can dispense with contracts and demand cash up front for his services. Thurston, on the other hand, is making ample use of government services, services that even a minimal state would provide. Libertarian considerations say Thurston should pay more.
How about big oil companies? Who is paying to keep the Persian Gulf open? American taxpayers and soldiers! We can justify a rather hefty carbon tax just to pay for services already rendered on this basis alone. A freedom party could thus target the nature-loving demographic with a policy justifiable even if near term global warming is a false alarm. How about Hollywood stars and rich rockers? Without government provided copyright enforcement they would be making Vaudeville wages. Let them pay for services rendered; they like government anyway.
Fee for service government would be more progressive than our current labyrinth of income, wage and sales taxes. Throw in a bit of Henry George and a freedom party could be left of the Democrats while still calling for smaller and simpler government.
Suppose we think of government as a large public utility, a natural monopoly. We make the monopoly aspect less bad by organizing it as a consumer coop. Every citizen gets one share. If we provide each citizen with not only a vote, but a dividend, we could dispense with the welfare state and still bring poverty down to levels manageable by charity. See Charles Murray's "In Our Hands."
To sum up: a freedom party could advocate a government which is more progressive, more environmentally friendly, and closer to the libertarian ideal than what we have today. It might even be able to win elections. But would ye want it to?
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of C.S. Milsted, Jr. only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. C.S. Milsted, Jr. is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Excellent summary of the work you've done @ holisticpolitics.org, but I fear you will not find much of an audience here, for the reasons you already identified.
You captured the fact of the matter here:
Judging by some of the responses to my previous essay, a victorious freedom party might not be a happy event for some of you. Imperfect liberty in actuality is inferior to the dream of perfect liberty or so it seems.
And that about sums up the whole problem. It's a mental roadblock: your target audience is more interested in dreaming rather than helping it come true. If they only understood that liberals and other left ideologies dealt with the same issue as they do, that there is a similar malaise, (yet misunderstanding) on the other side as well... even anarchists (in the traditional sense of the word) use money.
Why? Because they embrace the fact that society will not eliminate money overnight. Democrats and liberals love being the "me-too" party. What ever liberal meme is fashionable, whether it's climate change, human rights, the rank and file always champions the latest movement, and I believe, this is a large reason to their success. They're more responsive to the concerns of the many.
Libertarians refuse to submit to this. That is why they fail where their left counterparts succeed.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-30 11:48:46
HI Carl,
Good article....but nothing new.
I'm not going to repeat my entire critique, only this one key point. "Freedom" and "Freedom From" are antonyms where "freedom from" is nothing more than an alternate expression for "oppression of".
So, all you have propsed is calling the the oppression of behavior you don't like, a freedom from that behavior. Word games do not alter reality. I see very little difference between your proposal and the current status quo followed by both the dems and the GOP....Oppression of behavior and IDEAS they dislike.
You simply advocate oppressing different behavior. Big whoop.
Perhaps closer to the libertarian parties of Europe, e.g. the German FDP or the British Liberal Democrats than to the dippy Rothbardite old-school U.S. libertarians?
@Spence: Looks like 3 of 4 commenters get it. So there is some audience here.
@Jahfre: No difference with D's and R's? You need new glasses. I am advocating ending the income tax, ending the drug war, ending a myriad of social welfare programs, and funding government with taxes much closer to the anarchic ideal.
@Ben: I think so. There was a Danish Justice Party that is perhaps on the lines of what I am thinking.
Nice article, I like the idea of a license to participate in adult activities, I had never heard that before. But there would still be a huge reason for the black market to exist, since noone that is seriously considering drugs will wait to take a test and apply for a license. It might work better for prostitution, but I don\'t think it would be at all effective since you\'d have to live under a rock not to know about the risks of STD\'s/pregnancy from both school and the media. Better to just legalize both, slap a tax on it and regulate it. Licenses sound like a desparate attempt at a middle ground built on a false premise.
Your argument rings of some truth, but this license idea: I am aware Leary was a large proponent of LSD usage, but I cannot find it anywhere that he advocated a license, though it's certainly possible- perhaps a citation would help me out?
Another thing, how would we work this system exactly? If it's an arbitrary definition of maturity or responsibility, then I have a problem with it. And if there's a registry, then it's not even really a freedom at all, but an extended privilege.
@Randy: you already have to show a card to get alcohol. We already have restricted zones for casino gambling. These systems work better than our system for marijuana and hard drugs.
@Adrian: See "Flashbacks" by Timothy Leary. Leary's idea was modeled on driver's licenses. You need more training for LSD than for marijuana. Leary was big on the importance of setting for LSD usage in order to avoid bad trips.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
