Civil Disobedience and the Libertarian Division of Labor

Having witnessed first hand the fruits of brutal libertarian in-fighting, I think it is important to examine the roots of such needless, yet casualty producing conflict. Libertarians believe in a legal theory based upon non-aggression--that is, a respect for the rights of others. We oppose the idea of a monolithic, ever-present state wielding arbitrary and capricious power over subjects. Where so-called libertarians deviate by endorsing some form of aggression, we should, no doubt, ferret out the incorrect position so as to prevent anyone from confusing it with a libertarian one. The evil sell-outs and the misguided retreatists, as Rothbard called them, ought to be battled on philosophical grounds. Not all inter-libertarian conflicts arise from such principled disputes, however.

Wilt Alston has previously addressed the problem here with his posited categories of "pre-lib" and "pre-con" libertarians. I think that one's previous political disposition that may be inculcated by parents, or by some other means, may color our libertarian lens like Wilt suggests. I think, though, that the way many libertarians focus their indignation may be even more obvious and primal than mere prior team affiliation. When dealing with the government itself, we each see the face of the state in the areas where we have best tasted of its evil effect.

For those of us who are successful businesspeople, the taxing power of the state that has so many times inhibited the growth and success of vibrant enterprises is the arm of the state that must be attacked. For those of us who are parenting young children and are required to jump through legal hoops to home educate them, the specter of centralized, regimented, state regulation of education is the usurpation that ought be battled first. For those of us who have a friend or relative who has been imprisoned for self-medication outside of the bounds of state approval, on the other hand, the War On Drugs is the tentacle most in need of a chopping.

It is obvious, and to be expected, that one would hate the part of the state with which he has had the misfortune to wrangle most often. Yet, it isn't obviously right to say--speaking as a libertarian strategist--that any of these branches of the state apparatus is necessarily the right one with which to start. This is because they all are. An individual soldier must defend the front that he occupies. So too must we libertarians defy the state's grasp where it reaches for us personally--an activist division of labor.

It is some small satisfaction, no doubt, to moralize about the wrongs committed against others, and to voice opposition to their oppression. This is itself praiseworthy, and can be helpful in popularizing a movement, and in guiding its participants. Yet, when we look for the heroes of any revolution that casts off one tyrant or many, we must look first for the individuals who simply stood their ground. The most lauded heroes--and thus the most effective figures for the purposes of fomenting revolutionary ideas--are those who did not seek out a fight, but rather stood steadfastly and refused to yield when assailed by the usurper.

The search for libertarian heroes is made more difficult, though, by the fact that while we libertarians nearly universally recognize an individual's inherent freedom to do with his body as he wishes, we don't necessarily find the use of intoxicants or other acts of carnal indulgence praiseworthy. For example, take the massive act of civil disobedience staged by ten thousand students and activists in Boulder, Colorado on 4/20/08. Some libertarians may find this sort of behavior foolhardy, even without the risk of arrest. With that view of the underlying drug use, they then find it difficult to praise the act of resistance to the state, even though they advocate the abolition of all drug prohibition. Yet, these college students are heroes. Whatever a libertarian may think of the wisdom of smoking marijuana, it cannot be denied that these particular pot-smoking college students--who were presumably not picking up the habit solely for this event--were engaging in what can only be called anti-state activism. Rather than cowering away from the state, hoping to be overlooked, they risked arrest in an act of defiance that brought one of the state's more ridiculous laws into greater disrepute. And what may be helpful to libertarians who are apprehensive about fully applauding such behavior is the fact that they did it without engaging in anything more or less moral than what they already do anyway.

Likewise, regardless of what one thinks of Wesley Snipes' acting abilities, his battle against the IRS is more heroic than Susan Sarandon's speeches against the war. After all, while Ms. Sarandon's antiwar position--insofar as it is a consistent one--is laudable, it is only a matter of words. Wesley Snipes acted to defend his property from federal usurpation--he stood his ground, and paid heavy consequences for it.

Now, I do not mean to say that each and every libertarian must subject himself to a scourging by the state to show his devotion to resisting it. I agree with my friend Manuel Lora that libertarianism is not an altar call for martyrs. I do not think that most libertarians ought to pull up stakes and abandon their gainful employment only to throw their bodies into the cogs of the state. However, when the state comes roaring towards your home, it is heroism to dig in, stand firm, and resist for as long as possible. Likewise, those students in Boulder were already part of a legally vulnerable class of citizens--recreational drug users. By taking their resistance outside, where others could see some indication of the strength of those in defiance, they are to be praised as having made a contribution to the cause of liberty.

Just as atheist libertarians should applaud the sentiment of Daniel's pious disobedience to Darius, so too should socially conservative libertarians applaud the revolutionary sentiment expressed by those tie-dyed students in Boulder.

(Also published at LewRockwell.com.)

From One Christian to Another, On Human Liberty

(This essay is an excerpt from an email that I sent to a fellow Christian Libertarian on an email discussion list. The recipient had previously expressed their own doubts about the Non-Aggression Principle, and the philosophical steps to arriving at such a conclusion, as well as the Principle's compatibility with scripture. The name of the other party is withheld, but the principles expressed stand on their own.)

Philosophy is simply logic applied to various "problems." I believe, as a Christian, that God imbued us with logic by creating us "in His image." I believe this is what separates us from the animals—abstract thought, and the ability to willfully glorify our Creator, as breathed into our dust-composed bodies.

Also, you should be aware that the scriptures only condemn vain philosophies in Colossians 2:8:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."

It is clearly incorrect to interpret this to mean that all philosophy (philo + sophia = "love" of "wisdom") is abhorrent before God. We are to be Bereans, and to knowledgably critique the positions of others to determine if they are consistent with God's will as revealed through general revelation ("...written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 2 Corinthians 3:3) and in special revelation ("All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Now, if someone misinterprets God's word due to some predisposition (often due to human traditions, as noted above), we are to gently correct them. "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." (James 5:20-21)

Now, I would not presume to judge you for your beliefs about the state, but I would tell you that I believe that it is most consistent for a Christian to be an anarcho-capitalist. I know that murder is wrong. There is no scripture passage that provides an exception for government officials. Therefore, collateral damage, wrongful execution, etc. are sinful and should not be directly or indirectly supported by believers.

We know that prostitutes were viewed by Christ as sinners, but as sinners who should be shown love and mercy. We know that our Lord defended at least one such sinner from an angry crowd, stating in John 8 that "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." The crowd's response? "And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." Surely, she was a sinner, and Jesus told her to go and sin no more. He treated her with love and concern, seemingly not just concern for the community, but for her. So from this passage I take it that Jesus did not teach the use of violence against prostitutes. This jives with the non-aggression principle.

Now, of course, the next biggest scumbags (at least in Jesus' times) seemed to have been the tax collectors ("publicans"). For this offense, unlike with prostitution (a victimless crime), restitution seems to have been in order, as per Zacchaeus. The commonly cited "render unto Caesar" was a trick answer to a trick question (Luke 20:20 states that they wished to "take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.") It is not a mandate to pay taxes. It is a mandate to support property rights. Of course, with that particular response (Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; render unto God that which is God's) it is not clear that anything is Caesar's—at least Jesus doesn't say that anything is. Certainly we assume that everything does belong to God, therefore rendering the question of taxation moot.

In the ultimate scheme of things, it doesn't matter what we "think" works best. It only matters that we abide by the express commands of our Lord and Creator. Even tithes are not to be taken forcibly, "for God loveth a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians 9:7). Why then should taxes be seen as legitimate? It doesn't matter if you or I think the government can do the best road-building and maintenance—the apostle Paul clearly destroys consequentialist ethics in Romans 3:7-8 when he states, "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." In other words, it is not okay to commit evil acts to bring about good in the future. This consequentialism is clearly condemned in scripture, and it is the sole basis for taxation. In whom is your faith: the traditions of man (taxation) or the divinely inspired words of the scriptures?

Note too the express condemnation of government in 1 Samuel 8:4-20. I include a portion of that passage below:

"Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them."

I will not reject our Lord's divine providence for my life, so I will never pledge my loyalty to anything other than Him and His instructions. Since I would not will that anyone use force against me (barring my own commission of a property/violent crime), as an adherent to that faith which states, "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" (James 2:8; also in Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 19:19, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Romans 13:9, Galatians 5:14, etc.), I must never aggress against another.

In closing, the non-aggression principle is 100% in keeping with God's word, so far as this humble reader can tell. I pray that you will see my above note (which I sent only to you, not the list, as per Matthew 18:15-17) not as a castigation of an ideological opponent, but rather as an appeal from one believer to another.

From One Libertarian to Another on the War in Iraq

(The following is a letter that I wrote to two Alabama libertarians about my position on the War in Iraq. In previous emails, I had made it clear that I am an anti-war libertarian, and by anti-war I mean "the no-compromise, bring-them-home-now position.")

I too made the mistake of voting for GW Bush in 2000. My litmus test was the gun issue, and, heck, the NRA sent me three stickers with which to promote GW Bush. I can even say that, in my capacity as a dorm Resident Advisor, I was ferrying my residents to the polls so long as they promised to vote Bush. I've been trying to pay my penance for that through activism off and on since 2001.

As far as the exit strategy goes, I understand that removing troops from the theater means that there is a higher likelihood that the soldiers who remain there will become casualties. I am sympathetic to this problem, as I have lived with and trained with military men in the past, and I count a number of American combat troops as my friends. In fact, I have a good friend who is a demolitions specialist with SEAL team six, and two former roommates who are in Iraq with the US Army in combat arms slots.

I do not believe that the US Constitution authorizes the mustering of troops overseas. I believe this sort of action to be a grievous evil perpetrated by the federal government with federal taxpayer money. I know as well as you do that there are many brave men and women who are serving in good faith and who cannot be blamed for the poor decisions of their higher-ups. I am a religious man, and I pray for my friends and their comrades who are in harm's way. Nonetheless, I also pray for the innocent non-combatants who will be fully or partially incinerated by US white phosphorus ordnance (as in Fallujah), those who will have their property destroyed by US artillery and mortars, and those who will lose family members under the deceivingly innocent label of "collateral damage."

I cannot now, nor will I ever support any regime that sponsors total war. When Bush declared that those who were not with us were against us, he made it very clear that he was embarking on a jaunt that could only lead to total war involving the persons and property of millions of non-combatants. The crime perpetrated against thousands on 9/11/2001 ought to be treated like a crime. I would advocate the use of force to apprehend the individuals that actually committed the crime (including any material support with foreknowledge). For our state to attack a collective entity for the actions of individuals is immoral and unjust.

As for the sticky situation that we find ourselves in, I can only say that we must extricate ourselves from all entangling foreign alliances, including those with Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and many others.I recognize that this position may not win popular support, but I frankly don't care. It is right and I will continue to declare its necessity from the rooftops even if I am the only one dissenting. I and my future children are being put at risk by the actions of our government overseas, and I will not betray my family's future safety so that Bush can be blamed for fewer coalition casualties. Bush & Friends got our troops into this mess, and I will not accept responsibility for it. It is Bush's fault that our troops are in harm's way, and it is Bush's fault if many die in our troops' extraction/exfiltration.

We should do right at any cost, and say "Damn the torpedoes!"