Libertarian Party = Propertarian Party
Niemand
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~dtn307/lpusa.html
LIBERTARIAN LIES
The Libertarian Party is an American phenomenon, as the term
"libertarian" has been
historically associated with anarchism. Indeed, to Europeans, libertarian
retains its
original meaning. The LPUSA has been around since 1971, and since this
time has
garnered quite a following on the ideas of defending the common man from
the evils of
government.
The degree of political dyslexia in the United States is so severe that
many Libertarians
actually have adopted the term "anarchist" to refer to what they're
espousing. In the
interests of clarity and truthfulness, I'm going to analyze the
Libertarian Party line and
see if the "party of principle" actually lives up to its allegedly
libertarian ideals.
I highlighted sections that stand out to me as revealing the hidden true
nature of the
LPUSA. If you don't know what I mean by BUZZWORDS, by all means check it
out.
LPUSA POSITION
"We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the
omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual."
Already, you see some qualifiers--they object to the OMNIPOTENT
state, rather than objecting to the state itself. This would make them
minarchists, not anarchists!
"We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion
over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they
choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of
others to live in whatever manner they choose."
The above is the main theme of their party. As a platitude, is
sounds very nice. But the buzzwords continue buzzing--"sole dominion",
"forcibly interfere", "whatever manner they choose". I'll deal with these
later.
"Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite
principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of
individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States,
all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to
regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor
without their consent."
One word to sum this up: TAXATION (aka, "fruits of labor"). This
gets downplayed by the emphasis on their opposition to lifestyle
legislation--this is a good thing, but is invidious in that it creates
the illusion that Libertarians are libertines, when economically, they
are reactionaries. Again, I'll touch on this soon enough.
"We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these
things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the
rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we
support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against
others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action --
accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom
of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and
(3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government
interference with private property, such as confiscation,
nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of
robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation."
Here is the classic Americanism in action: life, liberty, and
property (aka, "the pursuit of happiness"). Property is the foundation
upon which the Libertarian Party rests; liberty and life are secondary
considerations.
Libertarians see property as the means to perpetuate life and to
maximize liberty.
This is where the schizophrenic nature of the LPUSA comes into play.
Against censorship? Great. Pro free speech? Better still. The right to
property? Hold the presses! There can be NO property rights maintained
without the state...so, we see the LPUSA talking a good game about
opposing the intervention of the state in their affairs, yet we suddenly
see it recognizing a "right" to property; moreover, they speak of the
prohibition of robbery and trespass among other misdeeds.
These are property offenses, and would require a powerful state to
provide a police force to ensure that said property remains inviolate!
So the LPUSA would have you believe that they're against the state,
when at the same time they express their support for a right of property!
Does that mean each and every one of you has a right to a plot of land?
No. Of course not. It does mean that if you can purchase some land, that
you'll be able to "join the club". Once you purchase this land, your
"right" of property is established, and is defensible only by the power
of the state.
This is why the LPUSA is such a profoundly MIDDLE CLASS
party--because these people are property owners, and don't like the
government taxing them for their ownership of land. But at the same time,
they cannot keep their property safe without police and government. This
paradox is characteristic of bourgeois ideologies.
To the Libertarian, property is the means to liberty and life. In
this respect, they resemble classic economic liberals in their outlook.
Those without property should aspire to it. Property is the means to
salvation. This is THE party line of the Libertarians.
"Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights,
we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and
contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to
sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should
be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and
the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the
protection of individual rights, is the free market."
Voluntary...relations among individuals means employees working for
a property owner. The Libertarian Party line is "well, nobody FORCED you
to work there. You CHOSE to." But as I've said elsewhere, there is no
"choice" between work for another or die--the sane choose life; the
insane call that free agreeement!
They say people should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and
property for the benefit of others. But what is an employee of a
capitalistic firm if not someone sacrificing their lives (represented by
time) for the benefit (profit) of others (the owner[s])?
Anarchists agree that people should not be forced to work for anyone
else's profit--but this is not what the Libertarians are saying, for if
it was, it would negate their very premise--for they pretend that "work
for another or die" IS a free choice offered in capitalist society!
The Libertarians are saying, instead, that those WITH PROPERTY
should be protected from expropriation, regardless. They use benefit to
confound the very real issues of want and need.
Then they go on about the free market as the sole safeguard of
liberty. I wonder what individual rights they are speaking of that the
free market can possibly protect? Property? Liberty? Life?
What they are effectively saying is that people trade one master
(government) for another (capitalism). This is essentially their
argument, although, in fact, they aren't *really* abandoning the idea of
the state--no capitalist CAN! They merely want the "omnipotent" state
whittled down so it is more accountable to the demands of the
nation's propertarians, rather than the nation's people as a whole.
Society is evolving in this direction as you read this, so the LPUSA
should be quite tickled at the current situation.
1996 Party Platform
"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all
individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to
sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others."
This is more mumbo-jumbo against taxation and safeguarding of
property. Funny how party platforms reveal the constituency the various
parties are speaking to. This is also an extension of the bourgeois myth
of autonomy--that society itself is nonexistent--that we are all just a
horde of unconnected, conniving individuals welded together for the heck
of it. Name one person you know who's sovereign over their own life.
Society is the result of interaction, connectivity, reciprocity, and
cooperation, not the absence of it.
"We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential
precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must
be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can
peace and prosperity be realized."
Again, the chuckleheads talk again about these individual rights
without enumerating them. Are these rights those of life, liberty, and
property? Would a Libertarian recognize a right to food as a necessary
precondition to the "right to life" they endorse?
Of course they wouldn't. All they say is that you have a freedom
from the initiation of force against you, without elaborating (with
reason). For the right to life, taken in the abstract, is meaningless,
because human beings are not self-sustaining--we need food, water,
shelter, etc. to survive. Thus, the abstract right to life is grounded
in a very concrete reality. But the Libertarians don't touch that one,
and with good reason--property rights supersede rights to life (and thus
liberty) in Propertarian society.
If you're starving and you pluck an apple from a Propertarian's
tree, you will go to jail as a robber and a trespasser (assuming you
aren't shot at the scene, naturally). It doesn't matter if you're
starving--all that mattered is you violated the Propertarian's property
rights--thus you see the natural dissolution the right to
life when crossed with the right of property...you would not be able to
defend your "theft" on the basis of a "right to life". I guarantee it.
The repetition of prosperity within this section is more bourgeois,
middle class capitalist apologia. Capitalist prosperity comes from the
labor of others, which is, in itself, a violation of the exploited's
liberty. The LPUSA's endorsement of capitalism as the economic system of
choice is a guarantee that fraud and force will remain alive and well in
Propertarian society, producing not a free world, but a world of masters
(owners) and slaves (workers). They call this "freedom", but they're
wrong.
"Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity
that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom
brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to
follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from
government or any authoritarian power."
I suspect the LPUSA is hoping to attract more minorities with the
diversity line in the platform. Let's look deeper...
Let's take the apple thief example again...I'm peacefully plucking
the apple from yon Propertarian's tree (they would classify this as
initiation of force--theft and trespass), even though I'm honestly
starving. But I'm shot as a trespassing thief. Thus you see the manorial,
essentially feudal relations the Propertarians would have you governed
by. I didn't initiate physical violence against the propertarian, but
they would still toe the line I established--why? Because the
Propertarians weld life and profit together. I've just "harmed" the
landowner by taking an apple from "his" tree.
Free to follow my dreams in my own way, free from any government
interference or authoritarian power? Okay, I want to live. But I can't do
that, because I don't own my own land. The land's all owned by various
wealthy Libertarians in the region. Thus, I am surrounded by
authoritarian powers who've already demonstrated a willingness to
persecute trespassers--so, how can I possibly be "free" to do anything
except starve and die??!
Libertarian "theory" only withstands scrutiny when said scrutiny is
withheld.
"In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and
enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles."
I'll create a site to comment on these various policy stances to
further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Libertarian Party. I think you'll
find the enumeration of their policies to be revealing. Some of their
stances are good, but the real core of their program is very, very bad.
"These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing
more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this
end that we take these stands."
In the world of the Propertarian, only those with property are free.
By taking property as the means to liberty, it establishes a continuum of
liberty, rather than an absolute. This dangerous precedent means that
liberty will only be there for those who can afford it--thus becoming a
luxury, and not a right, as the LPUSA would have you believe.
MORE ON LIBERTARIAN STANCES
The following is excerpted from the official LPUSA page...
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
"No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both
concepts are based on the same fundamental principle: that no individual,
group, or government may initiate force against any other individual,
group, or government."
"Initiation of force" is the cardinal sin in propertarian society,
carefully defined to encompass anything propertarians oppose. For
example, if Libertarians hold to this fundamental principle, then why do
they not return the land their ancestors stole from the American Indians?
There are fewer purer examples of initiation of force than the European
conquest of the New World! Let's explore further...
THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY
"There is no conflict between property rights and human rights. Indeed,
property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property, and as
such, are entitled to the same respect and protection as all other human
rights."
Here we get to the foundation of Libertarian (or, more accurately,
Propertarian) ideology, as I mentioned. Property. Note how they establish
(sans proof) that there is no conflict between property and human
rights--thus, if a wealthy landowner's property rights contribute to the
abject poverty of the people in a given region, there is no conflict, in
the eyes of Libertarians!
Notice how they refrain from enumerating "all other human
rights"--what are these other human rights? Anarchists can think of quite
a few human rights, all of which clash head-on with property "rights".
"All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as
the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech
and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our
property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material
objects."
As I'd said, Propertarians view property as the keystone of
liberty--in this, they are correct--WITHIN propertarian society, only
those WITH property are free. They pussyfoot around the issue by saying
that we are all propertarians, based on self-ownership--however, they
fail to note that self-ownership does NOT equal self-sustenance...that
is, in their society, the dispossessed are "free" only
to starve...self-ownership does not put bread on the table (nor provide
the table, for that matter!)
"Involuntary servitude", as mentioned above, is another
misconception of the Propertarians--they take it as a given that anyone
working at a place of employment is there because they want to--coal
miners, sweatshop workers, cashiers, garbage collectors--whatever...no
one forced them to work where they do (so the mythology goes). This is,
however, fallacious--those without property MUST, in fact, work for
another--be it employer or client (misnamed,"self-employment"). There is
no choice in the matter, for to choose death is not a rational option. It
is in this fashion that people enter into jobs they wouldn't
ordinarily undertake--it is this situation that produces the very real
involuntary servitude of capitalism...Propertarians pretend that the
ability to choose your own master equals freedom, but this is a lie!
"We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to
control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without
interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes
the valid rights of others."
Here we come across the nail in the coffin of the myth of the
Libertarian Party--The above is the "every man a king in his castle"
clause of their platform. The property owner is the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY
regarding his property. It is this idea that puts the lie to any
pretensions toward anarchism that Libertarians have. They do not reject
authority at all--rather, they object to authority over THEM! Such is the
way of all parties, alas--they expect everyone else to play by the rules
they created for their own profit.
The use of "valid rights" here is very important, since Propertarians
have a very skewed sense of what rights are "valid".
For example, if you're starving, and in dire need of food, the
Propertarians would not recognize this as a valid right (that is, the
right to eat). I know it's crazy, but this is their stance! They'd say
it's not THEIR fault you're hungry (or homeless, or whatever), and
probably have the police drub you into jail--but really, it IS their
fault--that is, it's the fault of propertarians everywhere that poverty
even exists--why? Property breeds poverty--once some take more than their
fair share, it guarantees that many will not get anything. Every
propertarian society has poverty --they are, and always have been,
intimately linked. I cannot think of a more valid right than the right to
be able to eat!
A "valid" right, to the Propertarian is any right the Propertarians
DEEM valid. Such absolute authority is the source of much tyranny
throughout history. As Thomas Hobbes so rightly observed, wealth IS
power--and in propertarian society, only the propertied will have the
power! Precious little liberty in such a world.
You see here that the inclusion of "life and liberty" to the triad
(life, liberty, and property) is ultimately obviated by the "right" to
property--for, if humans have a right to life, it is criminal for them to
be deprived of it--thus, the propertarian withholding food from his
fellow human is committing a crime against humanity. Moreover, the
dispossessed within a propertarian society are definitely without liberty
(that is, the right to do as they please).
So, you see how property negates the 2/3 of the rights the
Propertarians pretend to value! Political parties do things like this to
make their draconian systems more palatable--they are swindlers, like all
the rest, using honeyed words to con the majority of people into
accepting their own exploitation!
This is by their own admission--property is the way to the other
"inalienable" rights. Which means that those without property have no
liberty! Makes me wonder why the Propertarians even bothered to say we
have rights to life and liberty, when all they really care about is
property!
Just like the Democrats and Republicans adopted favorable-sounding
names that don't remotely resemble their agendas, so have the
Libertarians adopted a name that doesn't even come close to what they
stand for. Again, as I've said, these people are Propertarians, although
given how slipshod they are with the facts, Glibertarians would not be
too far off the mark, either!
"Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners
by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we
favor restitution to the rightful owners."
This gem is priceless, as it reveals the hypocrisy inherent in all
parties--they SAY one thing, and do another. If the Propertarians
actually believed in their own words, they would rush to return the
property stolen from the American Indians. But funny, you don't see them
doing that!
Let's see how the Propertarians resolve the issue of the grand theft
(and genocide) committed on the Native Americans...
AMERICAN INDIAN RIGHTS
"These major factors underlying the unconscionable plight of America's
Indians may be summarized as follows: (1) the unresolved complexity of
dual national citizenship; (2) the attrition of reservation lands and
abridgement of Indian rights to remaining
properties; (3) the subjugation of individual Indians to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and tribal government authority; and (4) various federal
commitments to provide the tribes with health, education, and welfare
benefits "forever" in exchange for expropriated lands.
We favor the following remedies, respectively: (1) individual Indians
should be free to select their citizenship, if any, and tribes should be
allowed to choose their level of autonomy, up to absolute sovereignty;
(2) Indians should be allowed to have their just property rights
restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting and fishing; (3)
the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished and tribal members
allowed to decided the extent and nature of their government, if any; and
(4) negotiations should be undertaken to exchanged various otherwise
unclaimed and unowned federal properties for any and all remaining
governmental obligations to the tribes."
Here we see the BIG LIE of Libertarianism in practice--after saying
that they: 1) reject initiation of force; 2) support restition of
property to the dispossessed, we see them backpedalling on the very real
issue that Libertarians are holding stolen land!!! Thus, they invent four
"remedies" to skirt around the clear contradiction of their propertarian
creed, the real reason for the "unconscionable plight" of the Native
American people--as if this simply happened to them!
This is precisely what I mean when I say that Libertarians seek
maximum liberty for themselves (through property) and fail to extend the
privilege to the rest of us!
We have a clear case of wrongful expropriation (let's call it THEFT,
MURDER, FRAUD, and ROBBERY, since that's what it is), one that
ideologically consistent Libertarians should be able to clear up--
1) Europeans and Americans wrongfully initiated force against the Native
Americans;
2) said initiation of force expropriated the Native
Americans;
3) their lost property should be restituted without hesitation.
But you don't see that. You see a waffle word..."just property
rights" added to protect them from their own hypocrisy--thus, in classic
Glibertarian fashion, it is UNJUST (!) for the Native Americans to push
for the restoration of their property!!
See the contradiction? Playing by the stated rules of the
Propertarian game, the LPUSA's membership is acting in violation of their
own platform! Would that this were the only case of such flagrant
hypocrisy on the part of these swindlers!
This contradiction occurs throughout propertarian ideology, in that
the apologists desire maximum latitude for themselves, while depriving it
for everyone else. This is the way of all vanguardists--those who would,
despite contrary declarations, oppress you for their own gain. Until the
LPUSA's membership abandons ALL Indian lands, how can anyone take them
seriously as defenders of property rights, and hence, liberty?? Like all
partisans, they are liars.
You see the very real reliance in force that lies behind property
"rights" in this instance--the LPUSA's membership holds wrongful property
because the state protects them from the consequences of their
crimes--this is the way of "free traders" everywhere.
=========================================================================
Anarchy for Anybody
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~dtn307/anarchy.html
"No rights without duties; no duties without rights."
--Anarchist slogan
=========================================================================
David Friedman
> LPUSA POSITION
>
> "We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the
> omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual."
>
> Already, you see some qualifiers--they object to the OMNIPOTENT
> state, rather than objecting to the state itself. This would make them
> minarchists, not anarchists!
Of course. The LP has never claimed to be an anarchist organization. It
welcomes both minarchist and anarchist libertarians, and tries to make its
platform acceptable to both groups.
> This is where the schizophrenic nature of the LPUSA comes into play.
> Against censorship? Great. Pro free speech? Better still. The right to
> property? Hold the presses! There can be NO property rights maintained
> without the state...so, we see the LPUSA talking a good game about
> opposing the intervention of the state in their affairs, yet we suddenly
> see it recognizing a "right" to property; moreover, they speak of the
> prohibition of robbery and trespass among other misdeeds.
Except that there are lots of real world examples of (primitive) stateless
societies, most of which have private property of one sort or another.
Indeed, even some animals, without states, have a simple sort of
property--territory. Don't you think your theoretical pronouncements ought
to be consistent with the facts?
> This is why the LPUSA is such a profoundly MIDDLE CLASS
> party--because these people are property owners, and don't like the
> government taxing them for their ownership of land. But at the same time,
> they cannot keep their property safe without police and government. This
> paradox is characteristic of bourgeois ideologies.
Why do you assume that "property" means only "land?" In the U.S. at
present, the total value of all land is a tiny fraction of the total of
all wealth. And a fair number of libertarians regard the theoretical case
for private property in land as weaker than the theoretical case for
private property in other things, since land, or at least site value,
isn't produced. I discuss this point near the beginning of my book _The
Machinery of Freedom_.
> To the Libertarian, property is the means to liberty and life. In
> this respect, they resemble classic economic liberals in their outlook.
Of course--libertarianism is a modern, and somewhat extreme, development
of classical liberalism. But we can't call ourselves "liberals" because,
in the U.S., that term has been annexed by the Social Democrats--the
socialism in dilute aqueous solution types.
> They say people should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and
> property for the benefit of others. But what is an employee of a
> capitalistic firm if not someone sacrificing their lives (represented by
> time) for the benefit (profit) of others (the owner[s])?
Someone engaged in a mutually beneficial trade.
> Again, the chuckleheads talk again about these individual rights
> without enumerating them. Are these rights those of life, liberty, and
> property? Would a Libertarian recognize a right to food as a necessary
> precondition to the "right to life" they endorse?
No. Why do you think that people are "chuckleheads" because they use words
in a different way than you do?
How, by the way, do you enforce a "right to food" without a state? Isn't
that the same sort of problem as enforcing property rights without a
state? If the people who grow food refuse to give it to the people who
want it, who makes them do so?
> "Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity
> that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom
> brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to
> follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from
> government or any authoritarian power."
>
> I suspect the LPUSA is hoping to attract more minorities with the
> diversity line in the platform. Let's look deeper...
That's because your interpretation of words has been corrupted by current
politically correct jargon. I think you will find that phrases like that
were being used by libertarians long before "diversity" became a euphemism
for affirmative action. Unlike you, when we say "diversity" we mean
"diversity."
> I'll create a site to comment on these various policy stances to
> further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Libertarian Party.
It's been done.
David Friedman
James A. Donald
dtn...@nwu.edu (Niemand) wrote:
> This is where the schizophrenic nature of the LPUSA comes into play.
> Against censorship? Great. Pro free speech? Better still. The right to
> property? Hold the presses! There can be NO property rights maintained
> without the state
First, statless societies have usually had property.
Secondly many Latin American governments have conspicuously failed to
provide protection for property rights in land and the means of
production, and though this led to higher levels of violence and made
business difficult, property did not evaporate, regardless of
government decrees.
In order to eliminate private property, it is not sufficient for the
government to fail to support it. This has very limited effect as has
been shown time after time. The government must actively strike out
against it with great and terrible violence.
As Bryan Caplan pointed out:
Stalin's farm collectivization program was at its height
of brutality from around 1929-1932. Robert Conquest estimated
the unnatural deaths to be in the 10-20 million range. And
yet, in Friedrich and Brzezinski's_Totalitarian Dictatorship
and Autocracy_ we learn that:
"By 1934, 84.5 percent of agriculture had been collectivized;
by 1939, the figure was 93.5 percent." p.264.
In short, the most vicious brutality unleashed against farmers in
history was only sufficient to get 85% of agriculture collectivized
after several years. The Spanish "anarchists" had no better success.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com
Lazarus Long
dtn...@nwu.edu yammered in a message to All:
dn> From: dtn...@nwu.edu (Niemand)
Having had his butt kicked all over Usenet with his
contradictory ideas, Doodah has changed his name, but not his
propensity for lies and half-truths.
"The anarcho-theftists have trouble with even their own basic definitions. They
claim that a capitalist system enslaves workers and does not permit them to
freely choose the job the worker wishes. Yet, when asked why so many work for
the very state that they claim to despise, they announce:
"I work to meet those needs because I have to.
I'm free to choose wherever I work; there is no inconsistency with my
beliefs."dtn...@nwu.edu
Doodah, in 1996 claimed that capitalism enslaves workers and does not permite
them to choose where they work. Yet when asked why he is forced to work where
he did at the time...doodah responded as shown. IN other words...beyond his
empty rhetoric and
lies...doodah, as typical of the whining class, looks for others to blame for
his own miserable life of self-induced failure.
... Anarcho Socialists...why use facts? Rhetoric and slogans are enough
-=-
|CLasLibNet: Lazarus Long 350:2/100.1
|Internet: Lazaru...@2-100-1.rational.vaxxine.com
While every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the
means which people may use in the persuit(sic) of their aims, under the Rule of Law
the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc
action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to persue(sic)
his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of government will not
be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts.
-- Friedrich Hayek, The Road To Serfdom
>>>[Gated by the ClasLibNet Gateway, The Network of Liberty]<<<