Returning Libertarianism to its Proper Place: The Current Fight for Socialism within the U.S. Libertarian Party

In my view, a world where right-libertarians and an-caps represented “the Right” and where left-libertarians and libsocs/an-coms represented “the Left” would be a wonderful place. “Let a thousand flowers bloom.” -Mao tse tung

The main problem that libertarians of any kind seem to have, and one that I have been criticizing for years, is that “freedom” (broadly defined) is not an idea that inherently appeals to most people. People who are drawn to libertarian ideas represent the minority of human beings who find the idea of freedom appealing. But being a libertarian (broadly defined) is like being gay, i.e. it’s something that may come naturally to a minority, but doesn’t appeal to the majority. Most people defer to the norms of their own primary reference groups, perceived legitimate authority figures, and their wider community of origin. And most people prefer safety and security over freedom. So the big question is how can libertarians influence societies beyond their actual numbers? What are the actual examples of situations where freedom emerged, usually by accident as the result of circumstances?

The following is an email interview with Matt Kuehnel and Dane Posner, two members of the Libertarian-Socialist Caucus (LSC) of the Libertarian Party. The interview took place over the course of a few months, between December 2018 and February 2019. The LSC may be contacted and followed on Facebook and Twitter. If interested in learning more or interacting, the LSC welcomes prospective members to participate in their discussion group on Facebook.


Categories: Uncategorized

2 replies »

  1. “So the big question is how can libertarians influence societies beyond their actual numbers”

    I have already invented the answer, Keith! I’ve posted it many times.

    I think you are stuck with the idea, understandably common in politics, that to make a change you need at least 50%+1 of the voters, or at least 50%+1 of the legislators, to DECIDE to make a change.

    No No NO!!!
    If an AP system were up and running, people who advocate and engage in activity contrary to the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle; Non Initiation of force Principle) could be easily targeted, anonymously. 10% of the population donating, or even 1%, would be plenty to set off what would amount to a technological revolution.

    Brief Description:
    Suppose each person could donate, anonymously, to a set of funds, each fund to be awarded to a person who correctly “predicted” the death of a politician. Politicians promoting socialism would simply die, and anyone who replaces them would die as well, until they learn to shut up.

    It’s odd that you ignore this idea. At least, you don’t seem to want to talk about it. My AP idea solved David Friedman’s “Hard Problem”, which he initially described in his 1973 book, “The Machinery of Freedom”. He couldn’t figure out how to solve the problem of how a libertarian or anarchist society could defend itself, without taxation.

    While in January 1995 I was unaware of Friedman, or the label he placed (“the Hard Problem”), I WAS aware, in general, of the problem of an anarchist society defending itself without taxation. I couldn’t think of a solution to that problem, prior to 1995. So, I labelled myself as a “minarchist libertarian”: It wasn’t that I wanted a small, residual government, I simply couldn’t figure out how to solve this problem.

    In January 1995, thinking on a different subject (how to get rid of a single corrupt or excessively spending politician) I realized how to solve what I didn’t then understand as “Friedman’s “Hard Problem”.”

    At that point, I knew that I no longer needed to be a ‘minarchist libertarian’, because I had discovered how to make anarchy stable.
    Jim Bell

Leave a Reply