Libertarian Politics: What do you agree or disagree with?

This week we make a radical shift away from totalitarian governments to libertarian governments. These two ways of governing populations sit at opposite ends of the spectrum: 1) totalitarian systems work to dissolve individuals into the larger collective of the state and 2) libertarian systems celebrate individuals and their inherent rights -- these civil rights limit the state's ability to interfere in the lives of the individuals it governs.

Here are some of the Libertarian Party's positions on various social and political issues of our time. Read through them and respond to the questions I've asked at the end of the blog post.

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

Libertarians support the rights recognized by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure should include records held by third parties, such as email, medical, and library records. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the individual right recognized by the Second Amendment to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense.
We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

Libertarians want all members of society to have abundant opportunities to achieve economic success. A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute
wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies and unconstitutional legal tender laws.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health
insurance across state lines.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world. Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by
political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

Take a moment, reflect on, and respond to the questions below:

Which one (or more than one) of these Libertarian positions do you find unacceptable? Why do you find it unacceptable? Or, do you agree with all of them? What about these Libertarian positions do you find agreeable? Why do you like them?

How would a libertarian respond to the assassination of an American citizen by the US President?

Is the US a Managed Democracy?

Last week we considered whether America could become a totalitarian state. There seemed to be a solid mix of views: some people said "yes," America could become a totalitarian state; some people said "no," America could not become a totalitarian state.


Sheldon S. Wolin, a professor of politics at Princeton University argues that America is already a kind of totalitarian state. In his book, Democracy Inc: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, Wolin claims that the totalitarian politics practiced in America is very different than the totalitarian politics of 1930s and 1940s Italy, Germany, Japan, and Stalin era Soviet Union.

America is a managed democracy [read about it here and here]. What does this mean for America? Wolin boils it down to this:


1. A political-religious mythology was created around September 11 that had primarily Christian themes -- an encounter with evil, a loss of innocence, and redemption and salvation of the American national state. [Read about 911 Cross here]

2. An immensely diverse American society was unified around the executive branch (the Presidency) and its ability to keep citizens safe from a common enemy that makes us insecure -- this form of totalitarian politics is independent of any particular leader, which means that both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are both part of the process. This does not mean that you have to like the President. This means that: American citizens expect the President to keep them safe and are generally fine with the President going beyond the law to accomplish this task. 

3.  Instead of mass political mobilization like the above images of Nazi Germany, an inverted totalitarian regimes aims to maintain the mass of the population in a persistent state of political apathy. The only political activity expected of the population is occasional voting. Citizens are unable to form into political coalitions outside of normal politics -- the mass of citizens are basically politically docile and politically inactive. Until the next election, citizens fade into the background of political decision making and focus primarily on their personal and private lives and desires.


4. This political docility and inactivity is combined with a special sense that Americans have about their selves. We imagine ourselves morally privileged. So, we take actions that are morally denied to others. For instance, the US government tried Japanese military personnel for war crimes because the Japanese soldiers water boarded prisoners as a torture technique during World War II. At the same time, the Bush administration authorized military personal to use water boarding, yet no one has been arrested or tried for war crimes and in fact the Obama administration has refused to pursue investigations of the Bush administration.


5. Wolin argues that the inversion of democracy occurs when the chief executive (the US president) can carry out significant actions associated with totalitarian dictators  -- for instance, when the President can imprison an accused person without due process and sanction the use of torture and assassination and not be held accountable to the rule of law.


What do you think?


Do you agree with any of the points above? Is America a managed democracy, which is a new kind of totalitarian government? Did September 11 become a mythological day for Americans? Are Americans morally privileged? To save ourselves, are all actions permissible? Should the President be able to break US law to keep American's safe? Or, are there limits to what the President should be legally allowed to do?  Would you be willing to sacrifice your most cherished freedoms for security?  Or is there a limit to what we as Americans will do in the name of security?

Totalitarian American Politics

Over the next couple of weeks we are going to talk about totalitarianism. We'll talk about the origins of the word, the conditions out of which totalitarians forms of government emerge, its goals and features, the relationship between the government and the citizen, and a number of other interesting topics related to this type of political arrangement.

In a totalitarians system, like in North Korea or what is emerging in Iran, the state and its charismatic leadership become omnipresent features of peoples' everyday lives. Indeed, in the most extreme cases, the aspects of your life that you usually call "private" (e.g. life in the house, emotional and intimate relationships, business transactions, etc.) practically disappear. The state government becomes a feature of most every aspect of one's life. For instance, in Iran, there is a moral police who enforce a public dress and appearance code. It is illegal for men to wear necklaces and certain kinds of hair cuts are outlawed. Also, at Iranian universities, men and women may be separated.

During the 1930s and 1940s, many Americans started asking publicly: Can America become a totalitarian state? With the rise of Japan, Germany, Italy, and Spain under totalitarian governments, some Americans were concerned that in the case of a nuclear threat from a foreign enemy the US Constitution would be streamlined -- civil liberties would be curtailed and Americans' lives would be totally mobilized against the foreign threat.

Since 9/11, some people are asking once again: Can the US become a totalitarian state where American's civil liberties (e.g. freedom of speech, freedom to bare arms, right to a trial by jury, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and protest, etc.) mean very little?

Naomi Wolf argued, for instance, that the Bush administration has started America down the path to a totalitarian system. She notes 10 steps the Bush administration has already taken, such as 1. invoking a terrifying domestic and foreign enemy, 2. creating a secret prison system (Gulag), 3. developing a thuggish groups of citizens, 4. setting up an intensive domestic surveillance system, 5. harassing citizens groups, 6. engaging in arbitrary detainment of citizens, 7. targeting citizens for assassination, 8. controlling the press, 9. equating dissenting voices with treason, 10. suspending the rule of law.

Similarly, Glen Grenwald has argued that the Obama administration has continued down this path. Particularly, the Obama administration has stripped certain US citizens of their civil liberties and assassinated them without their Constitutional rights to due process or freedom of speech.

The fear is that both Democrats and Republicans are ushering America toward an totalitarian state.

What do you think?

Do you think it would be possible for totalitarian politics to emerge in the US? Why or why not? Is it necessary in the fight against terrorism to limit Americans' civil liberties? Or, are civil liberties too important to give up in the fight against terrorism?

Economic Interests and Different Classes in America

Most people in Politics and Government commenting on this blog seem to agree that in America there are economic classes.

In The Iron Heel, Ernest says that these economic classes have distinctly different interests -- that means the wealthy man cannot understand or fairly represent the poor man's interest and the poor man cannot understand or fairly represent the rich man's interests.

Each economic class must have their own representatives in Congress who will fight for their class interests -- the poor must have representatives that are poor, the middle class must have representatives that are middle class, and the wealthy must have representatives that are wealthy.

Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, is neither a member of the Democrats nor Republicans -- he is an Independent. He is the only US Senator to describe himself as a "socialist." Watch this short video of Bernie Sanders on the floor of Congress. He argues that there is a class war being waged in America -- and the wealthy class is winning against the poor and middle classes:

Jimmy Hoffa, the president of the Teamsters union, also says there is a class war happening. Hoffa means that unions are having their legal ability to collectively organize and negotiate for better pay and benefits taken away. For examples, a newspaper near my hometown reported that local teachers have had their rights to collectively bargain taken away. Because the poor and middle class are those most likely to be members of organized unions, then not having the legal ability to organize is seen as a victory for the wealthy.

Instead of a war against the poor, US Republican Senator Paul Ryan says that President Obama is waging a class war against the wealthy by trying to increase taxes on those that make more than one million dollars per year. So, the wealthy being taxed more is seen as a victory for the poor and middle class -- and as a loss for the wealthy.

What do you think?

Do the different economic classes (poor, middle, wealthy) have different interests? Or, do the capitalist and the worker have exactly the same economic interests? Most Congress persons are wealthy, can the wealthy fairly represent the poor and middle class? No one in Congress is poor, but do you think that the poor and middle class could fairly represent the wealthy?  Is there a class war happening in America right now? If you think so, which class do you think is winning and which class is loosing?