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. belong in Category I (invasive ). It is still understates his point. If membership in Indeed, the anarchist contention about logically possible for an individual to be an invasive organization creates a pre­ the inherent invasiveness of the State a member of the State, an inherently sumption of guilt, then that presump­ would remain fulfilled even if all invasive institution, and commit no acts tion exists whenever the State is members of the State engaged that are invasive, either directly or vicar­ invasive, regardless of whether that con­ exclusively in non-invasive activities, iously. Only if we define membership in dition is inherent or temporary. Thus, save one, who committed some invasive an invasive organization as an action his point would hold equally for limited acts. Consequently, accepting the con­ which makes an individual vicariously government libertarians, who agree that tention that the State is inherently inva­ liable, does guilt follow from member­ all existing States are invasive. The pre­ sive creates no logical presumption of ship. Nothing about the anarchist view sumption of guilt for every member of guilt on the part of all members of the continued on page 4 the State only disappears after the State State. It simply implies that some In The Movement

fact, a campaign that neglects these mat­ David Bergland: ters will be irrelevant. The Correct Choice Nonetheless, the heart of radical libertarianism is its moral point of view. Murray Rothbard’s letter to the conven­ by Bill Evers tion delegates, which raised questions about how hard-core Ravenal’s libertar­ ian beliefs were, crystalized the worries of many delegates about how suited (Author’s Note: The preceeding issue refuting Mr. Raimondo. Ravenal was for presenting libertarian of Libertarian Vanguard contained an What I instead propose to do is to values to the American public as the LP’s article on the national convention writ­ state the positive case for Bergland, standardbearer. ten by Justin Raimondo and co-signed because I believe David Bergland by Scott Olmsted. The quotation about deserves the enthusiastic, whole­ Even on his home turf of foreign pol­ Emil Franzi that was cited in the article hearted support of radical Libertarians icy, Ravenal would have tended to stress teas inaccurately attributed to me. It in 1984. That support should be given the practical and strategic reasons not was actually authored by Colin Hun­ while still applying one’s critical intelli­ to be in Grenada. Bergland is the candi­ ter. My role in the launching of the gence and endeavoring to ensure that date who can comfortably call the Gren­ Bergland campaign was misstated. I the campaign always represents a hard­ ada invasion a crime. Furthermore, with was in fact working to put back core libertarian position. Less Antman as his speechwriter, Berg­ together the Burns nomination effort land can be expected to persuasively at the time the Bergland campaign was There are two basic reasons why Bergland was the right choice for the LP combine facts and policy proposals with launched. The quotations from Murray eloquent, hard-core libertarian Rothbard cited by Mr. Raimondo were nomination: First he can and will do an excellent job explaining to the public principles that can be understood and Mr. Rothbard’s private first impressions appreciated by the public. of the 1981-83 LP National Committee, what Libertarians stand for, what our before he had a chance to work with fundamental beliefs are. Secondly, Berg­ For these reasons, the press and the the committee’s members. As a member land promises to devote his campaign to convention attendees correctly saw of Libertarian Vanguard’s editorial recruiting those who will join into a Bergland as the radical, ideological can­ new constituency for liberty. board, I must apologize for the fact didate and Ravenal as the pragmatic can­ that these serious errors appeared in Bergland is the kind of candidate who didate. The majority of delegates our publication. I can only offer as is comfortable saying that taxation is preferred Bergland, and for the right explanation the irregularities in the edi­ “the politicians’ way of stealing.” Rav­ reasons. torial process for the preceeding issue— enal, for all his merits, is not that kind of irregularities for which Mr. Raimondo candidate. In addition, David Bergland’s has been censured by the RC Central Having been the research director of campaign staff had and has a very differ­ Committee.) the 1976 presidential campaign and the ent strategic vision from that held by The basic reason that David Bergland founding editor of a magazine that Ravenal’s campaign team. The Earl Rav­ was supported by Murray Rothbard, covered current events and policy enal team was essentially the same as Dianne Pilcher, and me during the 1983 issues, I do not wish to suggest that the 1980 Ed Clark for President man­ national convention was that Bergland practical proposals are unimportant. In agement team that had been headed by is a proven, hard-core, main­ Ed Crane. It contains many stream, radical Libertarian RCCC Members Censured able and conscientious candidate. The majority of RC people. members who were at the But one of the fundamental Meeting in December in San Francisco, the Central convention also supported Committee of the LP Radical Caucus voted to censure criticisms made of the Clark Bergland and for the same Vanguard editor Justin Raimondo for printing Vanguard campaign was that it devoted reason. before its contents were reviewed at a meeting of the too much of its resources to The majority of the RC Cen­ editorial board. Also censured were Colin Hunter, Eric persuading liberals, New York tral Committee chose, in con­ Garris, Joe Fuhrig and Dianne Pilcher. As a result, a Times readers and editorial trast, to support Earl Ravenal. number of inaccuracies appeared in Vanguard. For the writers, Anderson voters, the Their reasons have been ably record: the majority (Murray Rothbard, Scott Olmsted, New Class, and preppies to stated by Mr. Raimondo in the Colin Hunter, Dianne Pilcher, Bill Evers) of the RC Cen­ simply like Clark and the LP. preceeding issue of Libertar­ tral Committee supported Gene Burns until he dropped While this is important work, ian Vanguard. I see no reason out; Greg Kaza has not been elected to the RC Central it is not the same thing as to rake over old coals and stir Committee; and the Libertarian Student Network is not recruiting new voters and up animosities by going the youth section of the LPRC. continued on page 10 through a long procedure of 4 Libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984

Political Action continued from page 2 of the State, however, creates a uncritically accept the popular intuition power, however, is not a statement presumption in favor of this particular that a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a Johnson are about the actions of the elected official definition of vicarious liability over any equally or more responsible for the at all. Rather, it is a statement about other. crimes of their States than the individu­ other people’s subjective opinions of Before libertarians can apply the con­ als who directly committed those the elected official. Since the possession cept of vicarious liability at all, they crimes, they may be falling prey to the of unjust power tells us nothing about must first establish the concept’s valid­ same deference to hierarchical author­ actions of the elected official, and since ity by rigorously deriving it from more ity that they so often criticize. Vicarious libertarians hold individuals accounta­ fundamental libertarian principles and, liability, rather than forcefully fastening ble only for their own actions, the pos­ then precisely define the concept, so moral responsibility upon State session of power cannot in principle be that those whom it implicates can be members as intended, may in fact dissi­ the basis for vicarious liability, no mat­ clearly distinguished from those whom pate and help erode individual responsi­ ter how broadly defined. To make it does not. Unfortunately, although bility for the State’s crimes. elected officials vicariously liable for most libertarians implicity accept the For the sake of argument, however, holding power, in essense, makes them concept, they have not even attempted let us accept the ultimate validity of vic­ liable for other people’s opinions of to tackle these two prerequisites. So far arious liability. Let us further pass over them. as I know, only three previous articles the absence of any general principle Consider the example of a small within all of the libertarian literature defining the acts that would entail vicar­ society of approximately one hundred have explicitly touched upon the con­ ious liability, and instead consider four individuals in which there is a heredi­ cept of vicarious liability: Smith’s “The of the specific theories advanced to tary position of chief. The chief has one Ethics of Voting”4, Murray Rothbard’s implicate members of the State, in gen­ power: to put any member of the society “Law, Property Rights, and Air eral, and elected officials, in particular: in stocks at whim. No one else has this Pollution”’, and my own, “Can Elected power. If any other member of the Officials be Consistent Libertarians?”6 1. Possession of Unjust Power. society puts an individual in stocks, the Of these three, the only one that comes One voluntaryist theory admits that majority of those in our small society close to deriving or defining the con­ elected officials may not exercise their will consider it illegitimate. They only cept is Rothbard’s, and he ends up power to commit or order aggression, consider it legitimate if done by the rejecting vicarious liability, for the most but points out that they still hold such hereditary chief. part. power. The power to aggress is integral Now suppose someone is born to the For the moment, I remain undecided to the political office, irrespective of the position of hereditary chief who does on the ultimate validity of vicarious lia­ concrete actions of a particular office not believe in putting people in stocks. bility. A total rejection of vicarious lia­ holder. The very act of holding unjust Throughout his entire lifetime, he never bility leads to counter-intuitive power, even if it is not exercised, makes once exercises this power. Nor, does he conclusions. It would totally absolve elected officials vicariously liable.7 commit any other invasive act. In fact, Hitler and Stalin of complicity for the To evaluate this argument, we must he is so opposed to this power, that he crimes that they ordered but did not closely examine what it means to hold tries to convince the other members of personally commit. It would mean that power. Consider a tax collector. He or his society that no one should have such the U.S. pilots who bombed Vietnam she holds the unjust power to collect power. Nonetheless, the remainder of were guilty of murder, while President taxes, that is, the power to steal. Despite the society consists of hard-core tradi­ Lyndon Johnson, who ordered the initial appearances, the advantage con­ tionalists who not only continue to bombing, was not. veyed by holding the power to steal is believe that a chief should have this On the other hand, this would not be not a legal one. Any thief can draw up a power, but that he is still the hereditary the first time that libertarians have legal code sanctioning his or her theft, chief, despite his protestations to the arrived at conclusions that are counter­ but that would not necessarily give the contrary and his refusal to exercise his intuitive. In some respects, the concept thief any advantage over competitors. power. of vicarious liability appears to contrib­ The advantage conveyed by holding The chief in question, therefore, con­ ute to the State’s mystique. Very often, power is ideological, in the broadest tinues to hold the power to put people the crimes of the State are treated as sense of the word. When the tax collec­ in stocks, although he never exercises it. disembodied invasive acts totally tor commits theft, most people think it Clearly, no libertarian could view this divorced from any individual moral is legitimate. That is the difference chief as guilty of aggression, either responsibility. One frequent excuse between holding power and not hold­ directly or vicariously. Yet, the with which members of the State avoid ing power. If someone holds the power argument that holding unjust power personal moral responsibility is the to steal, all that means is that other indi­ entails vicarious liability implies that claim to be “just following orders.” This viduals think it is morally permissible this chief is guilty throughout his life. excuse is merely the most blatant mani­ for the person holding power to steal. Since the chief cannot change the opin­ festation of a general deference to hier­ To say that an elected offical exer­ ions of his fellows, he cannot avoid guilt. archical authority that the State cises unjust power is a statement about In most modem societies, it is not cultivates, among its subjects as well as the actions of the elected offical. To say continued on page 8 among its members. When libertarians that an elected official holds unjust Issue Analysis.

tractor is bound by the terms of the The Pitfalls contract he has won and, having no competition, may decide to work only Of Contracting Out to minimize his costs, rather than to maximize the services he supplies. Thus, we can expect that when a service by John Blundell is contracted out, much of the antiquated technology then in use will The evidence is overwhelming, say the market. be replaced and other cost-minimizing the proponents of “contracting-out.” The firm which wins a contract, say, improvements will be made. But the Whenever local government contracts to collect the garbage throughout the degress of improvement will not be as out a particular service, costs fall dram­ whole of a county will almost certainly imaginative or extensive as would pre­ atically and customer service rises in an not be operating at its optimal size. The vail if the contractor had to compete equally striking manner. Contracting scale of its operations has been arbitrar­ with many other entrepreneurial out, it is claimed, brings efficiency, cost ily set by local politicians, not by market suppliers—which would be the case effectiveness, and consumer signals. under free entry. sovereignty to an area of the economy The contractor might well be operat­ A further criticism of contracting-out where the opposites currently prevail. ing under massive diseconomies of is that it still leaves the decisionmaking Anything and everything can be, has scale. In reality, under market signals, in the hands of people vulnerable to been, or is currently contracted out by the optimal situation might be to have lobbying by special-interest groups. local government somewhere: refuse half-a-dozen small refuse-collection Since the services in question are not collection, parks maintenance, law firms serving one county, or one large paid for at the point of consumption, enforcement, education, and the firm serving a number of counties. As but from general taxes, the processing of tax receipts. long as the scale of the operation is special-interest groups wanting more of In some cases entrepreneurs have decided by bureaucrats, we will not a service know that they will not have to even paid local authorities for the privi­ know. pay for increased services. And the poli­ lege of taking over loss-making services All we can surmise is that the odds are ticians have little incentive to do other which the entrepreneurs have a million-to-one against the politicians than meet such demands. subsequently turned into profit-making having hit the optimum firm size at the The current vogue for contracting- ventures. time the contract is won. out obscures the existence of the real Such moves to replace directly- Another criticism of contracting-out, alternative to public provision by employed labor with private which applies equally to provision of government employees, namely, the contractors are viewed with hostility by services by government employees, is complete withdrawal of local authori­ the left, but, more importantly, with a that consumers must live with less than ties from many activities. complete lack of critical analysis by satisfactory service. The contracting-out movement itself either conservatives or libertarians. Under a monopoly franchise, the is creating a barrier to the existence of What is there to criticize about such local government specifies a standard this real alternative. Just as the public- marvelous improvements? In a nutshell: frequency of service. But the residents sector unions have railed against the local authorities are not truly open­ do not have identical needs for refuse contracting-out, private contractors can ing the provision of services to the removal, for example. Household A be expected to oppose moves which market. might need to have three garbage cans would destroy the local monopolies Under outside contracting, local offi­ removed on Friday, household B might they are successfully gaining now. cials still decide for their electorate the best be served by removing one can on Free entry to the market is the key. level and quality of services to be pro­ Monday, and so on. Those parts of various acts which place vided, and select the company to pro­ Only a market in which information a statutory duty on local authorities to vide the service. In other words, of this nature can pass freely back to provide certain services should be monopoly provision of service still contractors, unfettered by political con­ repealed so that public provision, either exists, and all decisions about the ser­ trols, will produce maximum consumer by private contractors or by vice continue to be rooted firmly in the satisfaction. Yet the champions of government employees, can be political processes of the local town contracting-out claim that it restores replaced by private provision. halls. consumer sovereignty. How can an Contracting-out does improve When the word “privatization” is increase of consumer sovereignty be services to some extent, and it does save used to describe this sytem, this is even claimed for a situation in which bureau­ some money. If it is viewed as the first more misleading, since it implies that all crats fix the level and nature of the ser­ step towards the complete withdrawal decisions about a public function have vices to be provided? The consumer is of local authorities from the areas been transferred to the private sector. not consulted. involved, then it is to be welcomed. In reality, only the mere delivery of the The entrepreneurial talents of the pri­ But if contracting-out is viewed as an service—not its price, quantity, or vate contractor licensed by a local end in itself, it falls far short of being a quality—is subject to the disciplines of authority are severely limited. The con­ market or free-enterprise solution. □ Brickbats & Bouquets

• One of the more obscure special own their own bodies, including their to inform the reader that he himself interest groups that mascarades as liber­ breastmilk. And we are aiming our opposes gun controls and truth-in­ tarian is Hungarian exiles that seek to Brickbat right at Mr. Wickam’s chest. lending laws. In his haste to twit the get the American taxpayer to foot the But undoubtedly we will hear more in Supreme Court for inconsistency, Chap­ bill for an anticommunist invasion or the future about Mr. Wickam’s avante- man compounds his error by leaving the revolution back in their native Hungary. garde “pro-life” libertarianism. One reader with the impression that all regu­ Writing in the Feb. 1984 issue of Rea­ thing we feel it incumbent on Mr. lations are desirable. .. Wickam to inform us about more fully is son, Hungarian exile Tibor Machan • A Brickbat to the Libertarian Inter­ precisely how he would like to enforce departs from the libertarian mainstream national and the British Libertarian to advocate “fighting” against this alleged right.... Alliance International for including isolationism. • A Bouquet to new RC Central Com­ George Miller of the Russian fascist He opposes taking a principled mittee member Joe Fuhrig for flying at organization NTS in the program of the stance, saying this would be “rigid.” He his own expense to the LP National upcoming Libertarian International calls isolationism “irresponsible.” Convention at the last minute to run for meeting.... In particular, he opposes immediate the Vice Presidential nomination. Fuh­ • Oh Liberty, what crimes are commit­ withdrawal of U.S. forces from Japan and rig lost, but was able to raise radical ted in thy name! A new London-based Western Europe. He questions the wis­ libertarian issues in the course of a hard­ antisubversion journal, Internal Secur­ dom of disengaging from foreign entan­ hitting campaign.... glements. He opposes treating ity Defence Review, advocates in its expansionism abroad as an evil. A big • The LP's 1972 Presidential nominee, inaugural March 1983 issue that Brickbat, served up with Hungarian John Hospers, has become a renegade imperialist governments attempt to gouiash, to Tibor Machan.... and a Reaganite. The Oct. 21,1983 issue brainwash captured guerrillas by indoc­ of the Daily Trojan, the student news­ trinating them in the thoughts of Mises, • A little ground-up Grenadan nutmeg paper at USC, reports that Hospers has Hayek, and Nozick. In our judgment, should be sprinkled over the Brick­ given up involvement in the LP and Hayek and Nozick don’t address the bats awarded to Rep. Ron Paul and hopes that Reagan is re-elected. Consid­ problems of the anti-imperialist journalist Tom Rethell. In a recent issue ering that Reagan has devised and guerrilla very directly. But Mises’s of his Freedom Report newsletter, Paul implemented the largest tax hike in Nation, State, and Economy—newly lashes out at criticism of what he calls American history, this is a strange stance available in a Bouquet-worthy transla­ “the U.S. rescue of American citizens in for a former LP standardbearer to take. tion by Leland Yeager—is a bible of Grenada.” What is Ron Paul, who boasts Hospers should have Brickbats rained libertarian anti-imperialism and would of being a taxpayers’ advocate, neutral­ down on him while the band plays the surely confirm the guerrillas in their ist, and noninterventionist, doing advo­ USC Fight Song. fundamental stance.... cating bailing out—at taxpayer Nor does Hospers hesitate to misrep­ • Laura Belcher, whose regular column expense—American medical students resent the LP’s official position on disar­ in LiberCal (published under the auspi­ studying abroad and supporting the mament. For a philosopher, Hospers is ces of the Los Angeles County LP), has overthrow, by American military force, remarkably equivocal about just what been 100% wrong, has come up with of foreign regimes?.... the LP’s position is. He implies that the another humdinger. According to Ms. LP has endorsed unilateral • Journalist Tom Bethell, who deserves Belcher, the goal of Libertarians should disarmament. For conduct unbecoming a Bouquet for his Feb. Reason column be a homogenized rather than pluralis­ a philosopher, Hospers gets another on liberal threats to press freedom, tic American culture. Minorities should must also receive a Brickbat for his Brickbat... be forced into the American attacks on the press for calling the U.S. • A baby Brickbat to quasi-libertarian mainstream. Spanish-speaking invasion of Grenada an “invasion,” syndicated columnist Stephen taxpayers should be told what to do in instead of a “liberation” as Bethall Chapman, who devoted a June 1983 English that they do not understand. would have it. Really, Tom, “invasion” is column to deploring the U.S. Supreme The specific target of Ms. Belcher’s a straightforward, accurate descriptive Court’s elimination of restrictions on current (Sept. 1983) anguish is election term—“liberation” is propagandistic abortion. Chapman tries to point to lib­ materials in non-English languages. But jargon.... eral hypocrisy in the court’s support for the real problem here, unnoticed by Ms. • One of the more unusual “libertar­ some regulations but not others. But he Belcher, is tax-funded election ian” attempts to fasten onto the great tit falls flat on his face; he is simply wrong materials. Neither English-speaking of statism comes from John Wickam. As in stating that the court finds that a voters nor non-English speaking ones reported in the Jan. Voice of Liberty, “compelling state interest” justifies should enjoy this subsidy. This is the newsletter of the San Joaquin County truth-in-lending laws. In truth, since the first time (but probably not the last) (California) LP, Wickam (who is the 1930s, the Supreme Court has accepted that we’ve heard from a supposed Liber­ editor of that newsletter ) maintains that virtually all economic regulations with­ tarian that one of the proper roles of law infants have an enforceable legal right to out checking into their justification. enforcement in a free society is impos­ their mothers’ breastmilk. In contrast, Not only is Chapman wrong about the ing an official language on those who do the libertarian position is that women legal doctrine at issue, but he also fails not speak it. We hearby award Ms. February/March 1984—Libertarian Vanguard 7

*

Belcher a Brickbat, and we’re only when it comes to holding the Israeli Glen Garvin was fired by de facto pub­ sorry that we’re doing it in English.... government to universal moral lisher Ed Crane for having run Waas’s standards, what happens to the Randi­ article. But whoever said Crane knew • The Korean airliner incident led to anything about journalism.... the usual knee-jerk responses in those ans: Blankout... libertarian circles where Reagan is con­ • A Bouquet to David Ramsay Steele, a • It is somewhat difficult to know sidered a squishy-soft, Comsymp, sell­ well-known libertarian critic of where to begin in awarding this Brick­ out dove. Reason magazine rejected the communism, for his article on the bat to David Morris of the South Carol­ submitted column on the incident by its Korean airliner incident, entitled ina LP. Morris has written a leaflet regular columnist Murray Rothbard. “007—Licensed to Trespass?” entitled “The Threat of Nuclear War: A Rothbard raised reasonable questions Steele does a careful job of outlining Libertarian Response.” His policy about the incident, but then editor Bob in his short, leaflet-length article some recommendations are sound: no foreign Poole refused to countenance dissent of the factual questions that need to be aid, no alliances, no troops abroad, abol­ on this topic from Reason’s militaristic answered about the incident. He does ish the income tax, and abolish the Fed. line. A Brickbat to Poole and Reason not hesitate to call the Soviet govern­ But the real point of his article is the and a Bouquet to Rothbard for resign­ ment’s act murder. But he also raises evils of East-West trade. ing as a regular Reason columnist after important questions about how clean For quotations to bolster his this and a previous column were the hands of the American government argument, Morris relies on Werner refused publication.... were in the whole matter. He likens Keller, author of The Bible as History American politicians’ rhetorical use of and a falsified statement Morris attrib­ • The acme of irrational hysteria over the incident to an earlier generation’s utes to Brezhnev. the Korean airliner was reached in a rhetoric about the Lusitania. Steele’s The truth of the matter is that trade full-page ad in the Sunday, Sept. 11, article is available from the Libertarian with America is not what keeps the 1983 Afeu’ York Times, sponsored by Alliance, 9 Poland St., London Wl, Great Soviet economy afloat nor is it the sine the Intellectual Activist newsletter and Britain.... qua non for Soviet military might. The signed by a herd of Randian scholars and • A Brickbat to self-styled pragmatist sooner our libertarian Birchers figure groupies. LPer John Wood. He won a seat in the this out, the sooner they will be able to The ad called for the complete sever­ Anchorage assembly by attacking the talk intelligently about foreign policy. ing of diplomatic relations with the incumbent for granting zoning varian­ For those interested in this topic we Soviet Union and the terminations of all ces. The Libertarian position is that zon­ recomment Benjamin Rogge’s article on negotiations as well. These ing is an oppressive evil. The more East-West trade available from the Cato self-proclaimed paragons of Randian exemptions and variances that are Institute... reason proclaim—rather unreal­ granted the better. Best of all, naturally, istically—that the Soviet government is is abolition of zoning.... • A Brickbat to the Montana LP for literally not to be found in the same eliminating the requirement that new “universe” as the freedom-loving U.S. • Bouquets to four consistently members sign an endorsement of the government. A Brickbat for this eva­ excellent newsletters: Hawaii Libertar­ nonaggression axiom in order to join. sion of reality. ian, $3/yr. from Libertarian Party of Hey, Montanans, we’ve an ideological The ad correctly likens the Soviet Hawaii, 1125 St. King St., Rm. 202, party, not a garden club. government to bank robbers and other Honolulu, HI 96814; Reason and Lib­ This new Montana LP policy is part of criminals. But somehow the Randians erty, $3 90/yr. from Libertarian Party of an anti-organization trend in that party. (who, after all, are intellectually aware Washington State, P.O. Box 8071, Instead of a functional balance between that taxation is theft) neglect the fact Tacoma, WA 98408; Idaho Liberty, P.O. centralization.and decentralization, the that the American government is also a Box 205, Boise, ID 83701; and Competi­ Montana LP has gone hog wild for group of robbers and other criminals. tion, Council for a Competitive Econ­ decentralism. According to the state LP Check your premises, Randians. omy, 410 First St., S.E., Washington, D.C. newsletter, removal of the requirement We radical libertarians favor U.S. 20003. of basic ideological agreement for new government diplomacy with all de facto The Nov.-Dec. 1983 issue of Competi­ members is “freeing up the party.” Next governments, including Nazi Germany, tion is particularly recommended for its we will learn that welcoming fascists Khmer Rouge Cambodia, the USSR, Red fascinating profile, “Sewell Avery: A and communists into the LP is liberation China, and Iran, even if those govern­ Defiant Capitalist,” by editor Cynthia Jo and tolerance. ments commit grave war crimes or Ingham.... New state chair Bob Crane wants the engage in the mass murder of civilians. LP to be merely an umbrella designation Such is our well-considered, prudent • The libertarian journalists’ group, the that identifies independently operating moderation. Free Press Association, deserves a Bou­ “freedom guerrillas.” Crane is also But the Randians favor cutting off all quet for awarding its annual Mencken under the illusion that the American ties with governments that shoot down award for best magazine article to Phila­ Revolutionary War was fought without civilian passenger airliners. Okay. What delphia investigative journalist Murray organization. Reading some history about Israel? Israel deliberately shot Waas for his piece, “The Rise and Fall of continued on page 10 down a civilian airliner in 1973. Yet a Ward Hack.” Inquiry magazine editor 8 libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984

Political Action continued from page 4 only elected officials and other he or she becomes a legitimate object of intended and unintended relationships members of the State who hold unjust just defense and retaliation. If an individ­ that benefit the State. power. The State grants unjust powers ual is not liable, then it is not approp­ Professors and teachers in private to many private individuals. riate to employ force against him or her, universities, colleges, and schools, for Corporations have the unjust power to even if he or she contributed through a instance, are just as assiduous in spread­ limit their liability against injured third complicated causal chain to some act of ing statist thought as professors and parties, which they rarely exercise. Mar­ aggression. teachers in State institutions and thus, ried individuals acquire unjust power Those who are liable for an invasive according to an institutional analysis, over the property of their spouses, a act must be a carefully circumscribed equally responsible. And what of the power much more frequently subset of those who are in some more contribution of the Fourth Estate, the exercised. We all have the unjust power general sense responsible. A vague or news media, to State legitimization? under specified circumstances to cheat broad theory of vicarious liability would Cooperative taxpayers make it function­ our creditors by declaring bankruptcy. I undermine the critical libertarian dis­ ally possible for taxation to continue. could extend this list for pages. The tinction between invasive and Indeed, to the extent that libertarians theory that holding unjust power entails non-invasive acts; If everyone is to some come to terms with the State in order to vicarious liability would implicate the extent guilty of aggression, then a con­ pursue their subjective goals other than parties in all these cases, regardless of sistent ethical opposition to aggression liberty, they also contribute to the per­ whether particular individuals ever loses much of its import. Everyone petuation of the State. Many of us use exercised their powers. These are some becomes a legitimate object of retalia­ State courts to enforce contracts, and of the perverse conclusions to which tion, and the dividing line between leg­ nearly all of us use State roads and the such a criterion for vicarious liability itimate and illegitimate coercion State postal service. We are inexorably leads. becomes hopelessly confused. A liber­ caught up in institutional relationships 2. Functional Responsibility. A tarian theory of vicarious liability must with the State that we cannot avoid, second voluntaryist theory attempts to be precise and strictly limited. unless we completely isolate ourselves establish vicarious liability on the basis from society. Very few of us can disclaim of an institutional analysis of the State. any responsibility whatsoever, if we This theory shares some similarities define responsibility broadly enough. with the possession of power theory, If everyone is to some We could all do more to oppose the but is not identical. According to this extent guilty of aggression State. This should hardly be used as a theory, every member of the State per­ criterion to convict us of aggression. forms a function consistent with the then a consistent ethical 3- Receipt of State Money: Many State’s purposes. Thus, State members opposition to aggression voluntaryists claim that accepting a necessarily perpetuate the State’s exist­ salary financed from stolen tax money ence and further its aggression, regard­ loses much of makes State members vicariously liable. less of their personal opinions or its import. State members, however, are not the intentions. For instance, a clerk in an IRS only individuals who receive the State’s office may not directly commit aggres­ largess, whether in the form of money sion, and he or she may believe that or other goods and services. Are welfare taxation is unjust, but he or she still recipients also liable because they performs a vital function that facilitates Functional responsibility is too broad accept stolen money? Clearly, at least continued taxation. We can subject and vague. It could easily encompass some uses of State resources, such as every State member to this kind of insti­ many who are not members of the State. driving on public roads and mailing let­ tutional analysis, identifying what role Indeed, voluntaryists like Samuel ters at the post office, are exempt from they play in the State’s aggression. Their Edward Konkin III have already vicarious liability. Not everyone who functional contribution makes all State employed institutional analysis to receives stolen money from a bank members, to some degree, vicariously extend vicarious liability from the State robber becomes culpable, not even liable.8 to all members of all legal political par­ everyone who knows that it is stolen We will examine later whether an ties, including the Libertarian Party.9 If money. Both the taxi driver who institutional analysis does, in fact, we apply institutional analysis to the unknowingly transports the robber impute some kind of functional respon­ State, then we must also apply it to the from the scene of the crime, and the sibility for the State’s crimes to all its rest of society. Because the State is not grocer who sells the robber food, know­ members. An even more basic problem, an exogenous institution, imposed from ing he is a thief, are presumably still however, is this theory’s attempt to outer space, but rather a product of the innocent of the bank robbery. Accept­ derive normative liability from descrip­ culture that legitimizes it, such an ing money or other resources from the tive function. One of the primary objec­ expanded institutional analysis would State may be one necessary condition tives of a theory of liability, vicarious or describe many sources of State power for vicarious liability; it is not a suffi­ not, is to determine against whom it is outside of the State itself. Although dis­ cient condition.10 tinct entities, society and State are also moral to employ defensive and retalia­ continued on page 11 tory force. If an individual is liable, then intimately intertwined in a variety of Letters

Dear Editor: ventionist foreign policy! much I hope, but I fear the LP and its The December Vanguard was David F. Nolan right-wing populists are gradually tak­ interesting—and far more effective ing over. Denver, Colorado without the vicious sniping, the hyste­ Over the last couple of years I have ria, and the half-truths and lies that have Dear Editor: engaged in debate with Mike Dunn; first been so prominent in previous issues. I in Frontlines, then American Defense, I just finished the December 1983 read and enjoyed the Grenada and KAL issue of Libertarian Vanguard, which and finally in private correspondence. 007 pieces and found your treatment of arrived last week. Unlike most of the Dunn is a complete pragmatist; he has the ’83 convention to be not merely a previous issues which I have perused, no discernable philosophy unless it is thousand notches above MNR’s hateful this one was surprisingly good. militarism and nationalism. He and LDC piece in LF, but good in its own right. The piece on Grenada was excellent, worry me a great deal, and I’d like to Tom G. Palmer and your article about the Korean Air­ become more active in the LPRC to Washington, D.C. lines provocation contained some info I combat their ideas. don’t recall having seen before. Paul Bilzi Although I disapproved of your attacks Hopkinton, New Hampshire Dear Editor: on the “Crane Machine” (as usual), and I was somewhat surprised to read, in I certainly have no intention of backing (The following letter was originally the December Vanguard, that I Bergland or anything, the LP convention sent to the Libertarian Forum We print allegedly “criticized the Clark campaign story had some interesting insights. I all it here for the information of our on foreign policy and ‘defense’ matters but cheered when I completed your readers.) from the right." attack on the so-called “Libertarian In my one and only published critique Dear Editor: International.” The last thing I wish to do is plunge of the Clark for President campaign, I My only major question was about the made the following statement: into the morass of distortion that consti­ piece on Pastora. It is my understanding tutes the LibForum's September- “On the subject of foreign policy, that he has sought CIA assistance for his Clark was at his best: resolutely non­ October report on the 1983 Libertarian crusade against the Sandinista regime. Party presidential nominating interventionist, willing to take the pure Even if he hasn’t received such assist­ position even on the tough one, Israel. convention. Setting the record straight ance, that leaves me less than enthusias­ in its entirety would require at least as No quarrels here. tic about contributing to his cause. “On defense, he waffled, trying to cut much space as the original article, and it both ways. After receiving some heat E. Scott Royce probably more. But one thing must not from pro-defense forces within the Arlington, Virginia go unanswered, namely, the attack on party, he adopted pro-defense rhetoric the integrity of the four Radical Caucus in his speeches. But the White Paper on Dear Editor: Central Committee members who sup­ Foreign Policy and Defense came out I’d like to congratulate you on the ported Earl Ravenal for the nomination. against every single proposed new new Libertarian Vanguard (Dec. The article charges that Messrs. Rai­ defense system, and offered no alterna­ 1983). What a change over the previous mondo, Garris, Olmsted, and Hunter tives. Still, given the disagreements anti-Crane scandal sheet. It had gotten demanded and were promised within the party on this issue, he can't to the point that I was considering campaign jobs or influence in return for really be seriously faulted for his per­ resigning the LPRC out of their switch from David Bergland to Mr. formance here, either.” (emphasis embarrassment. Ravenal. This is an outright falsehood, and the LibForum reporter could easily added) It is sad the price the Central Com­ Is that “criticism from the right?” I mittee had to pay to reach its present have known this. I can report the facts think not. And I question your motives position. I will miss Murray Rothbard. because I was an eyewitness. While the for making the assertion...especially as But I’ve often wondered about him. four were searching their consciences you eliminated the second paragraph Years ago he ran from the Buckley Right, over this issue, they asked for a private quoted above when you reprinted my but now he wants a coalition with the meeting with Mr. Ravenal. I also critique in Vanguard in 1981. LP populist right?! Of course, I could see attended the meeting. They asked Mr. Like it or not, I am generally consi­ this coming, with the 1981 weird Coali­ Ravenal some questions on his dered to be a “mainstream” libertarian. tion for a Party of Principle. I will also positions, then they made their My views fall somewhere between miss Scott Olmsted. I only met him “demands,” which, from the Ravenal those of Bob Poole and Murray Roth­ once, but was very impressed. campaign’s point of view, couldn’t have bard, neither of whom represents an The same day I received the Dec. L V, I been less demanding. extreme polar position. If you’re wor­ received the latest American Defense. First, they asked that foreign policy be ried about right-wing opportunism, go What is wrong with those people? a central issue of the campaign. Second, after your convention buddy Dick Ran­ Other than the revealing incoherent they asked for a minority outreach pro­ dolph! And rest assured that Frank, Mur­ interview with Bergland, the rest was gram; specifically, they wanted a Span­ ray and I aren’t about to approve any trash. How much influence does the ish brochure on Central America. Third, campaign materials calling for an inter­ LDC have relative to the LPRC? Not continued on page 10 10 Libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984

Brickbats & Bouquets continued from page 7 might be the cure for what ails icy analysis.... ogy, and let the private sector go to Montana.... work on it...” Can’t you just see it? Here • A Double-Brickbat of Presidential we have a political innovation of major • A Bouquet for Hoover Institution proportions to David Bergland for his fellow Annelise Anderson for her out­ import—Tax Credits for Militarists! remarks in the November 1983 issue of Hell, why should the government have a standing New York Times Op-Ed piece the Washington Libertarian. In an monopoly on weapons of mass destruc­ on recent immigration proposals. And­ interview on defense matters, the LP tion while all those poor, over-taxed, erson attacks the proposed bills for national standard-bearer was asked: over-regulated weapons contractors their penalties on employers, the incen­ “Let’s say that a country that’s friendly to like Lockheed, Boeing, General Electric tives they create for racial discrimina­ us, Japan for instance, were attacked by, and General Dynamics are left out in the tion, the numbers they would add to the let’s say the Soviet Union, and the cold? As for precisely how Tax Credits welfare rolls, and identity cards that government of Japan asked for direct for Militarists would work, well, details would surely be used for enforcement. military assistance, what would be your are sketchy—but we’ve got plenty of Her article is a model of libertarian pol- response?” “In responding to that,” time. It’s going to be a long, bumpy Bergland said, “I’d have to make some campaign.... Bergland assumptions. If that happens today, the continued from page J U.S. government has treaty obligations. So if someone were to call up the Presi­ Letters new activists, committed to the Liber­ dent of the United States today and say continued from page 9 tarian Party. Nor is it the same thing as ‘The Russians are attacking Japan, are building up the LP's organizational they asked that someone they trust be you going to do what you said you were strength. An Anderson voter might well high up in the campaign structure. They going to do?’ We would probably go like Clark but still vote for Anderson. supplied two names: mine and Tom ahead and do it.” One can only wonder The strategic vision of the Ravenal what Bergland means by “go ahead and Palmer. And fourth, they asked that oth­ team (called the Crane machine by its do it.” Does he mean go ahead and start ers they trust have at least an advisory foes) was to rely on Professor Ravenal’s World War III? This is far worse than function in the campaign. Again, they prestige with precisely the same groups anything good old Ed Clark ever said. supplied two names: Jeff Hummel and they had tried to cultivate in 1980. The For if President Bergland is committed Bill Evers. All of these “demands” were Bergland campaign team, in contrast, agreed to. I can personally assure your to carrying out our so-called “treaty was promoting a candidate who (as an readers that these promises would not obligations” this means he’ll have to experienced national and California have been repudiated. stand by everything from NATO to candidate and as a one-time USC Law Let me emphasize that at no time did alliances with Central American Review editor) could talk comfortably the four ask for jobs of any kind or even oligarchs... to the news media and the Eastern sea­ for volunteer positions for themselves. board elite. But Bergland could also talk ■ Yet another Brickbat of considera­ Neither were they offered jobs. It is true comfortably and sympathetically with ble size and weight to Bergland for that Mr. Olmsted was asked to serve on a tax rebels, gold bugs, sagebrush rebels, endorsing the militarization of space in central campaign committee. He is a home schoolers, anti war and anti draft the same interview. “In terms of a non­ talented, respected member of the activists, and so forth. The issue of Rav­ interventionist foreign policy and mil­ party, who would serve any committee enal’s Council on Foreign Relations itary defense,” asks the Washington with distinction. But as to the sugges­ membership symbolized this weakness Libertarian, “do you see any role for tion that Mr. Olmsted endorsed Mr. Rav­ of his candidacy for convention weapons in space?” “There are already enal in order to get this position: What a delegates. weapons in space,” answers Bergland. laugh! We practically had to twist Mr. The convention delegates liked Berg- Oh, I get it—just like we already have all Olmsted’s arm to get him to accept the land’s promise to run “a hard-core, radi­ those treaty obligations. He then goes appointment. cal, persuasive campaign.” They liked on to say what kind of space-based mil­ Your reporter may feel that the four his plan to build up the LP’s organiza­ itary technology he’d “feel comfortable RCCC members did something tional strength, its membership, its with.” “I don’t mean offensive dastardly by switching from Mr. long-term electoral strength, its local weapons,” he hastens to add, as if the Bergland to Mr. Ravenal at the conven­ candidates, and the constituency for the development of particle-beam tion. Let’s leave it to your readers to libertarian cause. They liked his willing­ weaponry in space were anything other decide if changing one’s candidate as ness to recruit into that constituency than preparations for a first-strike new information becomes available is a people from all across America who are against the Soviets. How he plans to dif­ terrible act of disloyalty, a sellout, or ripe for joining in our glorious endea­ ferentiate his own space-gun scheme merely a rational act in a world of imper­ vor. In short, the delegates did the right from Reagan’s Star Wars “High Frontier” fect knowledge. But one surely ought to thing and picked the best candidate. program remains a mystery. But we’re be able to debate the question without Now it is up to all Libertarians, regard­ given a hint when he says: “I think false allegations that unjustly besmirch less of whom they supported in New further that I would like to see the Fed­ the integrity of one’s associates. York, to work together to make this a eral Government express an interest in Sheldon L Richman top-notch Presidential campaign. □ the development of that kind of technol­ Springfield, Virginia February/March 1984—Libertarian Vanguard 11

Political Action continued from page 8 4. Taking Oaths of Office: Volun sarily invasive, if independently they are acts of an elected official. Therefore, taryists look suspiciously upon taking an not. candidate voting can only possibly be oath of office, although none have Return to our small hypothetical invasive when the voter votes for a can­ aigued explicitly that doing so, in and of society of approximately one hundred didate who both (a) wins and (b) com­ itself, makes an individual vicariously individuals. Making the chief an elected mits invasive acts. If the candidate loses, liable for the State’s aggression. The rather than a hereditary position would or if the candidate wins but commits no oath actually figures more prominently not materially alter the example. invasive acts while in office, the voter is in other voluntaryist claims, but I have Whether the chief holds office as a totally blameless. introduced it here for the sake of com­ result of the accident of birth or as a Even in those cases where the candi­ prehensiveness. The oath of office is a result of events over which he has some date wins and then commits invasive statement of intent. If it is to be inter­ control is irrelevant. An individual acts, however, I do not believe the voter preted as a source of liability, it could could run for chief, win, and then never is vicariously liable. Assume in our small only be as a result of the invasive nature once exercise his arbitrary power to put hypothetical society that two of the intended actions. But the people in stocks. In that case, neither his candidates are running for the position intended actions described in the oath running for office, nor his holding of chief: a conservative who promises to are no more specific than the various office, nor the two in combination exercise the power to put people in criteria for liability we have already con­ would make him guilty of aggression, stocks very liberally, and a liberal who sidered. Therefore, if none of the pre­ either directly or vicariously. promises to exercise that power with vious theories provide a solid basis for Running for office is not invasive restraint. Are those who vote for the vicarious liability, then neither can tak­ when the candidate commits no inva­ liberal candidate in order to minimize ing the oath of office. sive acts once in office, nor when the the number of individuals put in stocks Conclusion: Without a more com­ candidate loses. In fact, I would go vicariously liable for the few times that plete derivation and definition of the further. Because there is no necessary the liberal candidate commits concept of vicarious liability’, voluntary- relationship between the content of a aggression, if elected? ists cannot plausibly sustain the claim candidate’s campaign and the actions a Some voluntaryists claim that such that all members of the State or all candidate takes in office, if holding voters are liable, because even though elected officials are necessarily guilty of office is not always invasive, then run­ they voted for the lesser of two evils, aggression. The invasive nature of the ning for elected office is never invasive. their action affected the liberty of oth­ State necessitates that at least some pro­ In other words, even if an elected offi­ ers. They put in power a chief who then portion are probably guilty. Any cial does commit invasive acts while in committed some invasive acts. This concept of vicarious liability' increases office, these cannot be imputed back argument, however, proves too much. that proportion further. The voluntary- through time to taint, vicariously, his The ability to affect the liberty of others ists, however, have failed to running for office. is an inevitable consequence of a system demonstrate that an innocent elected Political Voting: There are three of political voting. Potential voters do official is, in principle, completely forms of political voting which must be not escape this predicament by abstain­ impossible. examined separately: (1) candidate vot­ ing. Not voting determines any Running for Elected Office: I ing, in which the voters choose an election’s outcome just as much as vot­ have already mentioned that Konkin elected official; (2) referendum voting, ing for one side or the other. If affecting extends vicarious liability from the State in which the voters directly choose the liberty of others is a valid basis for to all members of all legal political par­ State policy; and ( 3 ) constitutive voting, ascribing liability, then those who failed ties. Actually, if voluntaryists cannot in which the voters, by adopting or to vote are also liable. Making voters demonstrate that holding elected office modifying a constitution, directly estab­ vicariously liable for the outcome of an is invasive in all cases, then they cannot lish a State or modify its form. election in which every option, includ­ show that running for such offices is 1. Candidate Voting: For ing not voting, results in some aggres­ invasive in all cases. Nor can they argue candidate voting to be invasive at all sion is far from just. that the two acts in tandem—running requires a concept of vicarious liability I do not think voting is invasive even for and then holding office—are neces­ that implicates the voter in the invasive for those who elect a candidate who is the greater of two (or more) evils. As I pointed out above, there is no necessary TO COME IN FUTURE ISSUES relationship between the content of a candidate’s campaign and the actions a —Murray Rothbard’s suppressed Reason columns on Gordon Kahl candidate takes once in office. Voting, and KAL Flight 007 moreover, is just one of many ways of affecting State policy, and not always the most effective. Often, contributing to a —Jeff Hummel and David Gordon on the new Reason Foundation campaign, lobbying, or some other pol­ book, Defending A Free Society itical activity offers greater certainty of continued on page 12 12 libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984

Political Action continued from page 11 influencing the actions of the State. As a well as those who vote for between two types of functions within result, the causal connection between establishments or increases that fail, are the State apparatus. Some functions an elected official's invasive acts and the innocent. involve setting policy, while others voter who elected him is much too ten­ involve implementing policy. Many spe­ Unlibertarian in the 2nd Sense: uous and ephemeral. It provides no cific State jobs, of course, contain ele­ Ideologically Inconsistent more than a metaphorical basis for vi­ ments of both, but most jobs are carious liability. Holding Elected Office: When predominantly one or the other. 2. Referendum Voting: Unlike the voluntaryist shifts from arguing that The voluntaryist charge of ideological candidate voting, the connection holding office is invasive to arguing that inconsistency probably does apply to all between State policy and referendum it is ideologically inconsistent, the pos­ State jobs that implement policy, voting is unambiguous and direct. In a session of power and functional respon­ although even this concession must be bank robbery, if one robber holds the sibility theories become much more qualified. The State is inherently inva­ gun while another issues the threat, powerful, although still not conclusive. sive, but the fact that it is also legimit- both have directly committed The possession of power theory ized imposes severe constraints on its aggression. A law is nothing less than a observes a theoretical inconsistency in actions. These constraints not only limit threat. Thus, when a legislature passes simultaneously holding unjust power the State’s invasiveness, but they also an unjust law, every legislator who and claiming to oppose such power on prevent it from being purely invasive. In voted for the law is guilty of aggression, principle. In concrete form, it finds an order to maintain legitimization, the not vicariously but directly. Similarly, anarchist-libertarian Senator to be a State must attempt to provide many voting for an unjust law in a referendum contradiction in terms. This argument, goods and services, such as delivering election, if the law passes, is invasive. No however, breaks down over the same the mail or dispensing old-age concept of vicarious liability is required distinction that shattered the attempt to insurance, that have no intrinsic rela­ to hold such voters liable. They are as show that the possession of power is tionship with its aggressive goals. Any guilty of direct aggression as the bank necessarily invasive: the distinction contribution to the State’s aggression is robber who issues a threat that his col­ between holding and exercising power. an incidental feature of the jobs that league will enforce. On the other hand, The unjust power that an elected official provide these Category II goods and ser­ voting against an unjust law in a referen­ exercises is the result of his or her own vices. To the extent that they help legi­ dum election and voting for an unjust actions. The unjust power that an timize the State, individuals working at law that does not pass are not invasive elected official holds, in contrast, is the these jobs do indeed perpetuate State acts. result of the ideas that legitimize the aggression, regardless of their intention, 3. Constitutive Voting: In an arti­ office. It is no more inconsistent to but this is far from their primary cle criticizing voluntaryism, Murray work against such ideas from inside the function. Rothbard and Scott Olmsted have con­ office than from outside. An anarchist While the charge of ideological ceded that voting to establish a State or Senator, like an atheist clergyman, is an inconsistency does apply, no matter to increase its power in a constitutive anomaly, not a contradiction. Just as an how marginally, to all State jobs that election is invasive.11I am not so willing atheist may advocate from the pulpit implement policy, it does not necessar­ to make the same concession. Unlike ideas that would eliminate the position ily apply to jobs that exclusively set pol­ referendum voting, constitutive voting of clergyman, so an anarchist may advo­ icy. Policy setting positions are an does not directly determine State pol­ cate from political office ideas that inevitable component of all designed icy, but rather determines the institu­ would eliminate the position of Senator. human organizations. Individuals serv­ tional form and power limits of the As long as the anarchist Senator never ing in those positions can, by the very State. The State may gain the power to exercises unjust power, and makes clear nature of the position, alter the funda­ collect taxes in a constitutive election, his or her fundamental opposition to mental goals and characteristics of the but that does not guarantee that the the ideas that make the office of Senator organization. Smith has made the anal­ State will exercise that power. Conse­ possible, there is no ideological ogy between a company that manufac­ quently, while voters in referendum inconsistency. tures automobiles and the State, so let election are directly liable, voters in a At this point, the voluntaryist will us draw out the full implications of this constitutive election are at worst only interject the functional responsibility analogy.12 Most specialized jobs within vicariously liable. I believe that volun- theory. A Senator may advocate any the automobile company, such as mach­ taryists can construct a plausible case ideas he or she pleases, but institutional inist, welder, fitter, and warehouse fore­ for the vicarious liability of voters in analysis of the State establishes that even man, are policy implementing. They constitutive elections, but the case will an anarchist Senator, if he or she fulfills functionally contribute to the manufac­ not be conclusive until a libertarian the­ the demands of the office, performs an ture of automobiles, regardless of the ory of vicarious liability is ultimately val­ objective function that contributes to individual workers’ personal intentions idated and defined. Until then, the the State’s aggression. In order to evalu­ or preferences. The automobile invasive nature of constitutive voting ate whether institutional analysis does, company also has, however, a board of remains an open question. In any event, in fact, impute functional responsibility directors or some other policy setting those who vote against establishing a to all members of the State or to all continued on page 13 State or against increasing its power, as electd officials, we must distinguish February/March 1984—Libertarian Vanguard 13

Political Action continued from page 12 body that can, if its members so desire, office that is, without doubt, ideologi­ Needless to say, an anarchist libertar­ change the product manufactured, from cally inconsistent, at least for anarchist ian is unlikely to win, at least in the automobiles to toasters, or convert the libertarians, is taking the oath of office. short-term, if he or she remains ideolog­ organization into a non-profit corpora­ Affirming or swearing allegiance to the ically consistent by running an educa­ tion that manufactures nothing at all. State may not be invasive, but it certainly tional campaign. This observation Even if the company continues to manu­ involves a theoretical transgression. If merely indicates, however, that ideolog­ facture automobiles, dissenting the anarchist candidate runs a consist­ ically consistent campaigns are usually members of the board of directors, who ently libertarian campaign, and while in unwinnable, not that they are always desire such changes, need not in any office consistently opposes all State impossible. Some political libertarians, way functionally contribute to the aggression, then taking the oath is a rela­ like myself, are totally undaunted at the manufacture of automobiles. tively trivial transgression. After all, the practical unwinnability of consistent Analogously, if anarchists captured oath is an anachronistic ritual, dating campaigns. More important, if libertar­ the policy setting bodies of the State, from a time when people attached mys­ ians should actually win election after they could if they desired convert the tical or religious authority to such state­ running purely educational campaigns, State into a totally non-invasive organi­ ments. I find it surprising that some the very consistency of that campaign zation. So long as the State remains a voluntaryists have greater superstitious facilitates continued consistency in State and commits invasive acts, there reverence for this ceremonial gesture office. must be some individuals within its pol­ than do most people today, and indeed Political Voting: Voluntaryist icy setting jobs functionally responsible greater than does the State itself. None­ claims about the ideological inconsis­ for those acts. It is possible, however, theless, voluntaryists are correct at least tency of political voting stem from the for other individuals in policy setting about the oath’s ideological status. alleged role of voting in legitimizing the Elected libertarians, in order to remain State. Political voting is the major consistent, must either refuse to take source of ideological legitimization, If anarchists the oath, or must modify it so that it is they argue, for the modem democratic consistent with libertarian ideas. State. This statement is true, as far as it captured the policy­ Running for Elected Office: goes, but it ignores an important dis­ setting bodies of the Admittedly, our discussion of the ideo­ tinction. The State enhances its legitimi­ State, they could convert logical consistency of a libertarian hold­ zation by granting people the legal right ing office has abstracted from the to vote, but granting the right to vote it into a non-invasive question of how the libertarian got into and exercising that right, once it is organization. office in the first place. The voluntaryist already granted, are completely differ­ might concede that if an anarchist magi- ent. There is no solid evidence that indi­ - cally found him or herself in political viduals exercising the voting option, jobs to oppose the State’s aggressive office, he or she could use the position once the State has granted it, confers activities. These individuals need not to promote libertarian ideas and oppose any further legitimization upon the make any functional contribution to the the State’s invasive actions. But would State. State’s aggression. They are no more not the anarchist’s attempt to gain Let us look at the issue from the oppo­ responsible for the State’s aggressive elected office in the first place consti­ site angle. If the United States govern­ product than dissenting members of the tute an act theoretically contrary to ment, tomorrow, withdrew the legal automobile company’s board of direc­ libertarian ideas? right to vote, that step alone would tors are functionally responsible for The answer to that question depends almost completely delegitimize the U.S. their company’s product. upon the type of election campaign the government in the eyes of the American What about accepting a State salary? anarchist libertarian runs and the cam­ people. On the other hand, the fact that Does accepting stolen tax money help paign’s ultimate goal. If the ultimate a large percentage of potential voters to promote unlibertarian ideas? goal is winning the election, with all already fail to exercise the right to vote Perhaps, but again, we cannot finalize other considerations secondary, then has had no noticeable impact on the this judgment without some principle the voluntaryist charge is correct. Such State’s popularity. Indeed, it could that distinguishes accepting a State a campaign, in the current political con­ plausibly be argued that failure to vote is salary from apparently innocuous uses text, cannot avoid theoretical inconsis­ a sign of political complacency. Political of State resources, like driving on State tency. On the other hand, if the dissatisfaction can just as easily increase, roads, mailing letters at the State post anarchist libertarian runs a purely edu­ rather than decrease, the extent to office, or getting a tan on State beaches. cational campaign, with the primary which people exercise their voting The greater difficulty in avoiding these goal of spreading libertarian ideas, and option. latter uses, moreover, cannot provide with all other considerations, including Even if the overwhelming majority of the distinction. We require some princi­ electoral victory, secondary, then the potential voters refused to vote, that, in ple more substantial than relative incon­ voluntaryist charge is false. Nothing in and of itself, would neither signal an end venience to condemn an act as principle prevents an anarchist libertar­ to the State’s legitimization nor halt the ian from conducting a totally consistent ideologically inconsistent. continued on page 14 The one aspect of holding elected campaign. 14 libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984

Political Action continued from page 13 State’s aggression. The number of peo­ tion, this time between two strategic prove fruitful under a democratic State ple who actually vote, once the vote has goals. Libertarians face the twin for the first strategic task of ideological been granted, is largely irrelevant. Exer­ strategic tasks of (1) persuading a suffi­ persuasion. For the implementation of cising the vote does not contribute to cient number of the right people that libertarian policies, however, electoral the State’s legitimization. It merely libertarian ideas are correct and (2) politics is unavoidable. employs one of the options at our dispo­ actually implementing libertarian poli­ A more interesting and controversial sal for reducing the State’s burden upon cies, once the first task has been question is the efficacy of electoral our lives. accomplished. politics for the first strategic task: per­ Electoral politics will inevitably be suading a sufficient number of the right Unlibertarian in the Third Sense: the primary means for accomplishing people. This is the task presumably Strategically Unsound the second task, so long as the United undertaken by the Libertarian Party. Holding Elected Office: States government remains democratic. Party advocates argue that the public is Voluntaryists have one final argument The democratic process allows the state most acutely interested in political against the elected libertarian office to adjust smoothly to changes in ideo­ issues during elections. The Libertarian holder. Unable to show that the libertar­ logical consensus, and thus, paradoxi­ Party can exploit this interest and ian office holder is necessarily guilty of cally, helps keep the State legitimized. spread libertarian ideas by running can­ aggression or inconsistency, they ques­ As libertarianism gains wider didates. Libertarian candidates give tion the libertarian office holder’s trust­ acceptance, the democratic process libertarian ideas a visibility they could worthiness. Citing Lord Action’s famous will automatically translate the ideas not otherwise attain. dictum about how power corrupts, they into policy, regardless of whether liber­ There are three counter-arguments argue that even if it is not logically tarians personally involve themselves in to this strategic justification for running necessary for an elected official to exer­ electoral politics. Alternative strategies, libertarian candidates: (1) Electoral cise the unjust powers of office, an such as non-violent resistance or violent politics aims libertarian ideas at the elected libertarian will inevitably be revolution, can become the primary wrong people, those who have negligi­ tempted to do so. How can we rely means for implementing libertarian pol­ ble effect upon general public opinion. solely upon the elected libertarian’s icies only if the United States govern­ People who are only interested in politi­ good intentions, especially when he or ment ceases to be democratic. cal issues during elections do not think she sought a position of power in the Otherwise, these alternatives will not independently about such issues first place and probably swore on oath have an opportunity to operate, because anyway and are usually influenced by of allegiance to the State? the numbers they require for success others who do think about political This would be an unanswerable stra­ are usually sufficient to alter the offend­ issues between elections. (2) If the ing policies democratically. Non-violent tegic objection, if indeed all we could continued on page 15 rely upon were the good intentions of resistance and other alternatives may elected libertarians. However, we do not have to rely upon intentions at all. The circumstances of any politician’s election determine the parameters within which the politician must work while in office. Libertarians elected on the basis of ideologically inconsistent campaigns will, of course, face tremend­ ous pressures to compromise libertar­ ian principles, but they have already demonstrated their willingness to sell out in their campaigns. On the other hand, libertarians who run ideologically pure campaigns cannot even win unless the ideological preconditions already exist to make compromise very difficult. Self-interest and political realities, rather than good intentions, will tend to maintain the consistency in office of libertarians who run consistent campaigns. Running for Elected Office: In order to consider the efficacy of run­ ning libertarians for office as a means of achieving an anarchist-libertarian society, we must make another distinc­ February/March 1984—Libertarian Vanguard 15

Political Action continued from page 14 Libertarian Party remains consistent, it dilemma, actually hope that the State sus can have upon the extent and signifi­ will not elect anyone to office, at least in becomes more oppressive in order to cance of the invasive activities of both the near future. People will not take make it less popular. democratic and non-democratic States. seriously an organization that pretends This strategic dilemma, however, The description “inherently invasive” to be a political party, but never wins rests on an ambiguity in the concept of applies to the category “State,” and not any election. Libertarian candidates are to particular organizations, which can doomed to the neglect accorded all in theory move in and out of that minor splinter candidates, and this will category. discredit libertarian ideas. (3) The From a purely strategic This completes my review of the nine Libertarian Party cannot remain consist­ viewpoint, voting for the possible voluntaryist claims. Upon criti­ ent. The lure of political power is too cal examination, only one of the nine— strong. Candidates will tone down liber­ least objectionable candi­ the claim that running for elected office tarian principles in order to gain votes. date has greater impact is unlibertarian in the third sense (stra­ In my opinion, these strategic objec­ than not voting at all tegically unsound)—comprises, thus tions, especially the first two, are the far, a serious challenge to the compati­ more serious arguments against liber­ bility of libertarianism and electoral tarian political action. I am not politics. The claims that electoral polit­ convinced they can ultimately be dis­ delegitimization. Remember the ics is invasive (unlibertarian in the first puted, and I await further evidence and distinction between Category I sense) hinge upon the derivation and discussion. (invasive) and Category II definition of a libertarian concept of vic­ Political Voting: Even if running (non-invasive) activities. Delegitimiza­ arious liability—an endeavor that has libertarian candidates is strategically tion does not require implacable and hardly started. The claims that electoral unsound, this does not reflect on the undiscriminating condemnation of all politics is ideologically inconsistent efficacy of political voting. If political features of the particular organizations ( unlibertarian in the second sense ) end voting is not invasive, and it does not that are now States, no matter what they up resting upon nothing more than the legitimize the State, then there remains do or how they change. Instead, delegi- theoretical content of the oath of no additional strategic objection to it. timization merely entails the office—a trivial and easily surmountable The only alternative is not voting. From recognition that the State has no more obstacle. Even the potential validity of a purely strategic viewpoint, voting for right to engage in Category I activities the claims that electoral politics is stra­ the least objectionable candidate, vot­ than do private individuals and organi­ tegically unsound (unlibertarian in the ing against an unjust referendum, or vot­ zations. The implementation of libertar­ third sense) is confined to questioning ing against a constitutive increase in ian policies entails the elimination of the ideological efficacy of running liber­ State power has greater impact than not those very same Category I activities. tarian candidates. The voluntaryist voting at all. Thus, the delegitimization of the State rejection of libertarian political action Let me conclude this section on and the implementation of libertarian needs considerably more support, to be whether electoral political action is policies are complimentary aspects of persuasive. □ unlibertarian in the third sense with the same process. some general strategic comments. I If the democratic State ever ceases to Footnotes have already alluded to the paradox of exist, without becoming a democratic mechanisms. By adjusting non-democratic State first, it will do so 1 Geoige H. Smith, “The Ethics of State policies to popular opinion, they either through its own disbandment or Voting,” Part 1, The Voluntaryist, (Oct. perpetuate the legitimization of the through its transformation into a non- 1982), 3-5. State. This confronts libertarians, espe­ invasive institution. I wish to emphasize 2 Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, “Is Detente cially anarchist libertarians, with an this point, because many voluntaryists Between Anarchist and Limited Govern­ apparent strategic dilemma. seem to assume, implicitly, that neither ment Libertarians Possible?,” speech Libertarians want to implement outcome is possible. They mistakenly first delivered at the Politics of Principle libertarian policies that reduce the leap from the insight that the State is Conference (Austin, 1981) and subse­ power of the State, but they also want to inherently invasive to the conclusion quently elsewhere. This speech will deiegitimize the State. Superficially, that the particular organizations that are appear soon, I hope, as an article. Note these two goals are incompatible If now States are purely and inalterahly that anarchist libertarians believe that libertarian ideas become more popular, invasive. This implicit assumption, more the State, by its nature, must engage in and if democratic mechanisms than any other belief, informs the volun­ Category I activities. They therefore implement them into policy, this taryist opposition to political action. If oppose State provision of all Category II thwarts the goal of delegitimizing the the State can never limit or eliminate its services. Limited government State. The State can be delegitimized invasive activities, then electoral politi­ libertarians, in contrast, do not believe only at the cost of sabotaging the demo­ cal action becomes, by assumption, that Category I acts are inherent in the cratic process and the implementation futile. This assumption, however, nature of the State. They therefore do ignores the very real impact that of libertarian policies. Some zealous continued on page 16 libertarians, grasping this ostensible changes in society’s ideological consen­ 16 libertarian Vanguard—February/March 1984

Political Action continued from page 15 not oppose State provision of all Cate­ Elected Officials Be Consistent Libertar­ power is unlibertarian in the first or gory II services. They make special ians?”/ree Texas, 10 (Fall 1981), 16-7. second sense. See also Smith, “The exceptions for services like just defense This article was subsequently Ethics of Voting,” Part 3. and retaliation. condensed and reprinted under the 8 This theory is presented in Smith, misleading title, “Should a Libertarian “The Ethics of Voting,” Part 2, 3-6. 3 Smith, “The Ethics of Voting,” Part Let Himself Get Elected?,” in Frontlines, 1, 1,3. 4 (Feb. 1982), 5-6. In this article, I used 9 Samuel Edward Konkin III, “Invad­ 4 Smith, “The Ethics of Voting,” Part the general term “accomplice” instead ers from the State,” Libertarian Review, 1; Part 2, The Voluntaryist, 1 (Dec. of “vicarious liability.” Since then, 5 (Mar./Apr. 1976), 10-11. See also his 1982), 3-6; Part 3, The Voluntaryist, 1 George Smith and others have pamphlet, Our Enemy, The Party, (Long (Apr. 1983), and continued in convinced me that “vicarious liability” Beach, n.d.). Konkin has amplified and forthcoming issues. is the better choice. clarified his position further in conver­ sations with me. 3 Murray N. Rothbard, “Law, 7 The possession of unjust power the­ Property Rights, and Air Pollution,” The 10 For a defense of libertarians ory is most forcefully presented in Cato Journal, 2 (Spring 1982), 55-99. accepting a State salary, a defense that I George H. Smith, “Party Dialogue,"New Rothbard claims to oppose vicarious lia­ find provocative but not entirely con­ Libertarian, 4 (Dec. 1980/Feb. 1981), bility altogether, but it is clear from his vincing, see Less Antman, “Should 6-11; reprinted as a pamphlet in the remarks that he is using a much nar­ Elected Libertarians Accept Salaries?,” Voluntaryist Series, n. 1 (Baltimore, Caliber, 9 (June/July 1981), 6-7, 11. rower definition of the term than Smith 1982). Although Smith initially appears or I. Some of the instances which we to use this theory to claim that holding " Murray N. Rothbard and Scott M. would include under vicarious office is unlibertarian in the first sense Olmsted, “Is Voting Unlibertarian?,” liability—for example, the liability of an (invasive), his reply to a critical letter by Libertarian Vanguard, n. 25 (Apr. employer for the employee torts that he Less Antman, in New Libertarian, 4, 1983), 4-5. expressly orders—Rothbard finds valid. (Apr./June 1981), 5-6, makes it unclear 12 Smith, “The Ethics of Voting,” Part 6 Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, “Can whether he is claiming that holding 2, 4-5; Part 3.

Libertarian Vanguard is published by the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus. Editor: Justin Raimondo. Editorial Board: Bill Evers, Joe Fuhrig, Eric Garris, Mary Gingell, Colin Hunter, and Dianne Pilcher. Subscriptions are available at $12 per year. Letters to the editor are welcome. Change of address should be sent promptly to avoid missing issues. Libertarian newsletters of all varieties, we would like to exchange our publication for yours. Add us to your mailing list and send us your last issue marked “Exchange.” We will add you to our mailing list. Also, write for permission to reprint articles from Libertarian Vanguard.

Libertarian Party Radical Caucus 1550 Westwood Blvd. BULK PERMIT US POSTAGE PAID Los Angeles, CA. 90024 PERMIT *439 SPRINGFIELD, VA

S 29 Paul Grant Suite 106 12477 W. Cedar Ave 80228 Lakewood, CO