Tuesday, November 8, 2022

Libertarian Party Should Return Money to Taxpayers if it Qualifies for Public Funding

             Another midterm election is upon us.

 

            And, in 2022, the Libertarian Party has achieved ballot access in forty-one states, plus the District of Columbia.

            (Source: TheGreenPapers.com;

                        http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G22/parties.phtml?party=LBTN#CA)

 

            In one of these states – Illinois – six of the Libertarian Party’s nominees will be on the ballot:

            - Scott Schluter (running for governor along with lieutenant governor candidate John Phillips),

            - Secretary of State candidate Jon Stewart (a former professional wrestler, former Republican, and candidate for the party’s gubernatorial nomination in 2018),

            - attorney general candidate Dan Robin,

            - treasurer candidate Preston Nelson,

            - comptroller candidate Deirdre McCloskey, and

            - Bill Redpath, the party’s state chair, who is running for U.S. Senator from Illinois.

 

            Recent polls have put Scott Schluter at between four and nine percent of the vote.

            [Source: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/governor/2022/illinois/]

 

 

            In the voting districts in which Libertarian candidates receive more than five percent of the vote on Election Day, the party – in most places now classified as a “new party” – will officially qualify as a “minor party”.

            [Note: A minor party is defined, by the F.E.C., as a party which received between five and twenty-five percent in the previous election. A new party is one that received between zero and five percent.

            Source: http://transition.fec.gov/info/chtwo.htm#:~:text=Minor%20party%20candidates%20(nominees%20of,party%20candidates%20in%20that%20elec]

            In those jurisdictions, the Libertarian Party – and any other party receiving more than 5% – will be eligible to receive public taxpayer funds, “based on the ratio of their party’s vote in the preceding presidential election to the average of the two major party candidates in that election”, according to the F.E.C..

 

            In his October 10th, 2016 article for RealClearPolitics.com, titled ““Why Gary Johnson Can Still Make Election History”, author Bill Scher wrote, “…don’t you think for a second that the vehemently anti-big-government Libertarians won’t cash that big government check in a heartbeat.”

            [Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/10/why_gary_johnson_can_still_make_libertarian_history_132015.html]

 

            But, to anyone who is familiar with libertarian political theory and voluntaryist ethics, this presents a problem, as “Taxation is Theft” has been a slogan in the party for some time now.
            For the Libertarian Party of Illinois to accept taxpayer funds, would involve receiving funds which were arguably stolen, or extorted, from non-consenting civilians.

 

            Among those members of the party who do want the party to accept public funding, claims that “We’re just following the same rules that everyone else has to follow” seem tempting. After all, these rules affect other small parties in the same way, and the party could use the funding. “We need the money”.

            However, to accept such funds, would be immoral, and should be considered immoral by Libertarians.

            The party will certainly not be done “needing money” after receiving such taxpayer  funds. And, of course, needing something is not a valid reason to take it from somebody.

 

 

            We must stay true to first principles.

            The collection of taxes is done through a soft, legalized form of violence.

            Although the collection of personal income is done “without violence” (when the state and the I.R.S. take it out of your check), it is only non-violent on its face. In truth, the government would consider it an act of violence if you were to show up at a government tax office and try to recoup some of what was taken from you, claiming that you are owed a refund for bad service. And just the same, if you were to make attempts to conceal your wealth, or defend yourself and your property against confiscation. And the government would use real violence – i.e., physical force – to confront you, and to punish the actions you took, which the government chooses to perceive as violent. But it is the government which initiated force (started the fight).

            Additionally, some members of the party feel that voters never agreed to be subject to certain types of taxes in the first place. But whether Amendment XVI (which allowed income taxation) was duly ratified or not, the taxation of personal   income, by the federal government, should still be considered immoral (legalized theft).


          The fact that the money has already been taxed, justifies neither the continuation nor the increase of funding to new organizations. The fact that taxpayer funds previously supported a set of activities which were, overall, less inclined to promote liberty, does not justify reinventing ourselves as a new arm of the government (instead of a political party) before we are duly elected.
          To accept extorted funds from taxpayers, to fund our political party, would be to participate in, and benefit from, the non-consensual use of other people’s money to promote a political cause which about 95% of them do not endorse.
            A party that asks its members to sign a pledge promising that they do not support the use of violence to achieve political goals, should not wait to receive funds that were extorted from taxpayers at the threat of violent arrest and imprisonment, while sitting on its hands, pretending that it doesn't approve of that arrangement.
             For the Libertarian Party to accept public funding, would be for the party to say to the taxpayers, “Pay us, or else.” We would become what we hate. And it would demoralize us.

            Going through the experience of being treated nicely (rather than fairly) by this public funding law, might cause Libertarians to, one day, conclude that the rest of the arrangement is fair, in regard to election law.
            T
hey could conclude that Democrats and Republicans are equal participants in a fair system.
            This is obviously not the case, however, as the major parties' previous electoral successes have allowed them to be "grandfathered in" in various ways (such as their duopoly on the authoring of campaign finance regulations; and their control over who qualifies for debates, through the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates).


            If “the rules” allow the legalized extortion of people’s wealth, then “the rules” cannot possibly be fair in the first place. The Libertarian Party should not participate in a rigged game, no matter how lightly rigged it appears to be.

            Those rules can be changed, and with little notice, and little effect on the party’s activities.

            And the way the rules are written now, they arguably promise a kind of charity to smaller parties, whom arguably do not necessarily deserve that charity. Especially ones which are known for their support of meritocracy and their opposition to government being charitable with “other people’s money”.

            Think of what would happen if a fascist or authoritarian party – one that openly wanted to expand the size, scope, and budget of government – were to receive enough of the vote to qualify for public funds? The same law that allows the Libertarian Party access to those funds, allows public funds to be given to any party receiving more than five percent of the vote.

 

            We must not resort to “arguments from benevolence”; arguments which fascist parties could easily use for their own purposes.

            Just as we would not argue that government is a “necessary evil”, so must we avoid arguing that the Libertarian Party should support evil (i.e., involuntary) sourcing of tax revenues in order to fund ourselves as a “necessary” arm of the government.

            That is why no argument, based on “the rules”, nor practicality, should be allowed to stand, in regard to the debate over whether the Libertarian Party should accept taxpayer funds as a consequence of achieving more than five percent in the election.

 

            While optimistic Libertarians tend to comfort themselves with the notion that receiving public money will serve the necessary and practical purpose of funding our party’s important work, the election returns have not yet signified that the public agrees that our work is necessary.

            To accept public funds would arguably turn the Libertarian Party into an arm of the government. Not just the government, but a statist government; one which most party adherents consider too centralized, monopolistic, and immoral, to be able to exercise its powers without resorting to more violence (and legitimizing violence in the process).

            Why should the Libertarian Party become a sort of "Department of Redundancy Department" within its hated enemy, the State, when it could remain a private, voluntary political organization, like it is supposed to be? It would only serve to legitimize the State, if the party were to "join" the government in this manner, before it is even elected.

            The situation would undoubtedly be ironic. But what are we going to say to taxpayers when they rightfully point out that the party’s receiving stolen funds to become an arm of the government, is not only ironic, but also hypocritical?
            While the irony of an anti-tax party receiving taxpayer funds will serve as an amusing spectacle that will draw some new voters in and make them curious, we cannot be sure that our defense of receiving public funds will not turn off many potential voters who would be more interested in us if we were less hypocritical.
            By and large, if and when the Libertarian Party elects to receive public funds as a consequence of surpassing five percent of the vote, we will be ridiculed. We will be treated as if we were Ayn Rand showing up at the Social Security office to pick up her check.

            The fact that it seems necessary and proper to us to do anti-government work within the government, means nothing to most voters. And if the history of the expansion of government tells us anything, it is that what is necessary and proper to one group of people may not be necessary and proper in the eyes of another group of people.
            We must not pretend that the expenditure of extorted taxpayer funds will do good to the taxpayers simply because the recipients believe that they are using the money to do good.
            We do not deserve this money unless and until we convince taxpayers that there is something in it for them. If members of the public want to send us money, nothing will stop them after we achieve five percent of the vote, just as nothing will have stopped them beforehand.

 

            The Libertarian Party should decline and refuse public taxpayer funds whether or not it surpasses five percent of the vote.

            This would show consistency, and dedication to our voluntaryist principles. It would also demonstrate our adherence to a law which makes us eligible for public funding, but which does not require us to accept the money.

            Most importantly, it would provide the Libertarian Party with an important opportunity, which no other party would be likely to take, given the same circumstances: We would get an opportunity to save the taxpayers money without even taking office.
          This could be a “teachable moment” to voters, which could be pitched as “giving the public a refund” or “getting the taxpayers their money back” as an apology and reparations for bloated government, waste, and mismanagement.

            Although this would be only a small step towards fixing the government’s budgetary problems, it should be framed as such anyway, to avoid risking the public's contempt by appearing to pat ourselves on our own backs in self-congratulation. We should make it clear that more "refunds" are coming whenever we are eventually elected.
            It doesn't matter how much the influx of funds would help the party. Nor does it matter how small a step it would be to return those funds, when it comes to filling deficits in government budgets.
            Principles matter. And voters remember hypocrisy.
            The party should keep its eyes on the prize of remaining untouched by tainted money (and also, of saving the taxpayers money).

            Moreover, rejecting public funds would not be a total loss, in terms of the party's overall success.
            If we take a stand opposing theft from taxpayers when it is most important to do so (that is, when that theft stands to benefit us), then we may receive goodwill, and a boost in popularity and reputation, that will far outweigh the economic loss sustained in refusing public funds.
            We will get good press, and more people will consider voting for us in the future.
            Additionally, w
e will stand out as the first small party to oppose taxing people to fund political parties which they may not support (and to which they might even have strong ethical objections). Refusing public funds would send a message that, when other small parties accept public funds, they are benefiting from legalized theft (just the same as it would be if Libertarians - or Republicans or Democrats, for that matter - were to accept them).


            And who knows? Refusing public funds might even garner the party some
 voluntary donations (so economic loss isn't assured).
            And voluntary donations are the best kind of donations, because they’re the only donations that are ethical to accept.
               
How much money we take in, through “playing by the rules” doesn’t matter anywhere near as much as whether the money is obtained ethically in the first place.

           For the party to accept what amounts to - from the perspective of any self-respecting student of libertarian ethics - “legally stolen funds” (that is, funds extorted through violence that is legitimized through formal legal processes) would be to participate in a transaction that should be considered not only antithetical to our stated moral precepts, but also legally null and void.
            
It should not even have standing in court, just as an ordinary person would have no standing if he knowingly agreed to receive stolen goods, and then claimed to be entitled to something to which the seller had no legal right to sell in the first place.
            We should neither commit theft, nor become its beneficiaries, nor be party to theft in any way. We must follow our pledge to oppose the use of violence to achieve not only political goals, but economic and social/moral goals as well.
            If we accept the receipt of public taxpayer funds, for the purposes of funding the Libertarian Party, then we will not be able to defend that position, without "losing our soul" by abandoning our principles.
 

            The Libertarian Party should not only promise to refuse, decline, and return all taxpayer funds eligible to be disbursed to them in accordance with the law; it should advocate for the repeal of the law that allows private political parties to receive public funds before they are elected to office.
            It would be profoundly immoral for the Libertarian Party to choose to receive public funds long before acquiring the power to eliminate forms of tax revenue acquisition which are collected in manners other than voluntary donation and "fee-for-service" or "use-based system" models.

 

            We, in the Libertarian Party, must send the message that campaign funds are supposed to be earned fairly and freely; that is, through free, unpressured requests, made by either paid campaign workers, or volunteers who work unpaid but volunteer their labor enthusiastically.

            To refuse public funding would be the least that the party could do; to relieve the taxpayers of the burden of paying for us to exist, and to give the public a reason to like us, and see us being consistent.

            To promise to refuse public funding, could serve as a sort of “consolation prize”, providing voters with a new reason to vote for us. Or, at the very least, it could serve as a new reason for voters to see us as consistent and principled, rather than hypocritical and opportunistic.
            Many of us (myself included) have steadfastly opposed, on free speech grounds, having regulatory limitations upon the rights of private individuals and groups to donate money to political campaigns. This position is very unpopular in a nation in which some four in five voters disapprove of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. F.E.C..
            The Libertarian Party must send the message that it supports some form of limitations upon campaign donations. To accept voluntary donations from private sources, while refusing to accept funds received through extortion and expropriation, would communicate, very clearly, that we do have limits, in regard to campaign finance.
            Being less opportunistic, by refusing public funds, will help convince the public that we are not as greedy and selfish as the public sees us, but merely rationally self-interested (as Ayn Rand sometimes clarified).

            If the Libertarian Party receives more than five percent of the vote, then it should decline to receive funds extorted from the taxpayer.
            The party should immediately make it clear that it does not intend to perpetuate the cycle of legitimized violence and theft, by electing to receive those funds.
            It should, as soon as possible, undertake a mission to find candidates for office who will promise to author (and run on) new legislation which will afford equal opportunity for all parties, while providing stolen funds to none.

            It's just the right thing to do.

 


Update (added on November 13th, 2022):

            Early results, posted to the Libertarian Party of Illinois group on Facebook on November 13th, indicate that Scott Schluter received about 2.9% of the vote, just under 110,000 voters.




Written on November 8th, 2022
Published on November 8th, 2022

Updated on November 13th, 2022