LIBERTARIAN VANGUARD February/March 1984 Voice of Radical Libertarians Issue 28 • $2.00 In the third, broadest sense, the word In Defense of “unlibertarian” describes actions that may not be invasive and may not explic­ itly promote libertarian ideas, but that Libertarian Political Action otherwise hinder the achievement of a foj Jeffrey Rogers Hummel libertarian society. What this third usage questions is not the action’s ethi­ cal propriety, nor its theoretical consis­ Is electoral political action unliber­ will divide electoral political action into tency, but rather, its efficacy. Thus, in tarian? A good number of libertarians three categories of activities: (1) hold­ this third sense, the word have always thought so. Recently, ing elected office, (2) running for “unlibertarian” means “strategically moreover, with the formation of the elected office, and (3) political voting. unsound” and involves a strategic criti­ Voluntaryists, a libertarian organization The ambiguity of the term “unliber­ cism. Admittedly, the dividing line dedicated to exclusively non-political tarian” is less obvious but more crucial. between unlibertarian in the second strategies, libertarian opposition to In discussions of this issue, I have sense and unlibertarian in the third electoral politics has started to gain observed three separ­ wider acceptance. Voluntaryists such as ate usages of the term. George Smith are building newer, more In its first and narrow­ detailed, more sophisticated, and more est sense, the word powerful cases against libertarian par­ “unlibertarian” des­ ticipation in electoral politics. In light of cribes actions that actu­ these developments, it behooves liber­ ally violate rights or tarians who advocate electoral political entail aggression. This is action to give greater consideration to the sense in which theft, the anti-political critique and to defend taxation, kidnapping, and their own position far more systemati­ the draft are unlibertarian. cally than they have in the past. In this first sense, the word This paper attempts to draft such a “unlibertarian” is synon- defense. It is, by no means, definitive. omous with the words The question of the compatibility of “aggressive” and “invasive.” libertarianism and electoral politics is, This usage involves an ethical criticism. as we shall see, intimately related to In a second, broader sense, the word many other difficult and unresolved “unlibertarian” describes actions that libertarian problems, both theoretical are not necessarily invasive per se, but and strategic. A definitive discussion that promote, by word or deed, ideas must await the final resolution of those that favor aggression. For instance, if I problems. write an editorial endorsing taxation or I should also stress, as an initial bank robbery, I have merely exercised Caveat, that my defense of electoral pol­ my right of free speech and have not sense can at times become a bit hazy, itical action is not intended to denigrate committed aggression. Nonetheless, and I remain open to arguments that the other lands of activities designed to libertarians will justifiably criticize my two usages may ultimately collapse into achieve a libertarian society. The two editorial as unlibertarian, in the second one. For this discussion, however, I are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, sense. Similarly, if I contribute a large think the distinction is illuminating. libertarian political activity sum of money to an organization that Combining the three categories of unsupported by purely educational favors a strong national defense and electoral political action with the three efforts would be totally sterile, at best. reinstatement of the draft, I have not senses of the word “unlibertarian” At the outset, any examination of violated anyone’s rights, but I have done yields a matrix of nine related but dis­ whether electoral political action is something unlibertarian, in the second tinct claims about the incompatibility of unlibertarian must clarify the meaning sense. When libertarians, during their political action and libertarianism. I of both terms: “electoral political numerous and acrimonious movement shall use the term “voluntaryist” (with a action” and “unlibertarian.” The controversies, condemn each other as small “v”) to refer to libertarians who expression, “electoral political action,” unlibertarian, this is the sense in which advance one or more of these claims, as subsumes a variety of activities. Some of they are using the term. In this second distinguished from Voluntaryists (with these activities could be unlibertarian sense, the word “unlibertarian” means a capital “V”), who have some kind of without logically implicating the others. “ideologically inconsistent.” This usage continued on page 2 For the purposes of this discussion, I involves a theoretical criticism. 2 Libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984 k Political Action continued from page 1 formal connection with the new organi­ has ceased to be invasive.) members of the State are guilty of zation. The most sweeping of the nine What do anarchists mean, however, aggression. voluntaryist claims is that political vot­ when they contend that the State is Smith attempts to salvage the ing is unlibertarian in the first sense inherently invasive? They clearly do not presumption of guilt with the doctrine (i.e., invasive). Once this claim is mean that every single act of all States is of vicarious liability.3 He willingly con­ proven, all of the rest appear logically to invasive. Rather, they mean that all cedes that not every clerk and other follow, if we also grant that actions States must, by their nature, always com­ member of the State commits aggres­ which are invasive (unlibertarian in the mit some invasive acts. Elsewhere, I sion directly. In fact, he points out that first sense) are thereby ideologically have drawn the distinction between direct aggression is confined primarily inconsistent (unlibertarian in the Category I and Category II State activi­ to law enforcement and military person­ second sense), and that actions which ties. Category I activities are those nel. Yet, most libertarians intuitively are ideologically inconsistent (unliber­ which are invasive per se, like taxation feel that the person who plans and tarian in the second sense) are thereby and conscription, and which all libertar­ organizes a bank robbery and the per­ strategically unsound (unlibertarian in ians would find equally objectionable if son who drives the getaway car are both the third sense). On the other hand, the performed by private organizations guilty of aggression, even if they do not most sweeping case for libertarian polit­ instead of the State. Category II activi­ physically participate in the actual ical action would consist of disproving ties are those which are not invasiveper robbery. the claim that holding political office is se, like delivering the mail and providing In order to extend accountability for unlibertarian in the third sense (i.e., education, but to which libertarians invasive acts to individuals who do not strategically unsound). If this voluntary­ generally object when performed by the directly commit aggression, some con­ ist claim is refuted, all the remaining State because of their inevitable cept of vicarious liability is essential. nine would also seem to be false. connection with Category I activities.2 Like Smith, I am employing the term In this paper, rather than focus on any The anarchist insight about the State’s “vicarious liability” more broadly than single voluntaryist claim, I plan to inherent invasiveness does not even log­ its formal legal meaning to cover sequentially examine all nine. Needless ically preclude the possibility that some accomplice, accessory before and after to say, some will receive more attention existing State, like the United States the fact, aider and abettor, respondeat than others. In some cases, my government, might in the future cease superior, and all the other more specific comments must remain only all Category I activities and, thus, trans­ but similar legal concepts that arise exploratory. form itself into a completely either in civil or criminal law. Techni­ non-invasive institution. Anarchists cally, there is no single legal term to Unlibertarian in the First Sense: merely believe that, if it did so, it would cover all these cases, but vicarious liabil­ Invasive no longer be a State, in any meaningful ity, which comes from civil law, is the Holding Elected Office: The sense of the word. most general term available. question of whether holding elected The distinction betwen Category I Although Smith interweaves his dis­ office is necessarily invasive is actually a and Category II activities applies to indi­ cussion of vicarious liability with his subset of a much broader question: does vidual members of the State as well as to argument about the presumption of membership in the State, either as an the State as a whole. Members of the guilt, the two are actually independent. elected official, as an appointed official, State can engage in both invasive and Even if valid, vicarious liability does not or as another kind of paid or unpaid non-invasive activities. The difference, result in a presumption of guilt for employee, make an individual, ipso as far as anarchist libertarians is con­ membership in the State. Inorder for an facto, guilty of aggression? Smith argues cerned, is that while the State must individual to be guilty vicariously, he or that, at least for anarchist libertarians, always commit some invasive (Category she must still commit some act, even if among which I count myself, member­ I) acts, individual members of the State not one that is directly aggressive. Vicar­ ship in the State creates a presumption need not. Some members could commit ious liability, therefore, simply implies of guilt. This presumption follows from exclusively non-invasive (Category II) that some activities which were the anarchist contention that the State is acts, some could commit exclusively previously classified in Category II inherently invasive.1 invasive (Category I) acts, and some (non-invasive) might more properly (Actually, Smith in one respect could commit a combination of both.