Table
of Contents
1. The 2018 Libertarian National Convention
2.
The Debate Over the Libertarian Party Platform
3.
The Debate Over Economic Systems and Property
4.
Wealth Acquisition: Chrematistics vs. Economics
5.
Libertarian Capitalism vs. Libertarian Socialism
6.
The Social Safety Net, Basic Income, and Revolution
7.
Restoring the Libertarian Alliance with the Left
Content
1.
The 2018 Libertarian National Convention
Since the summer of 2017, the Libertarian Party has been abuzz about the rise of the party's Libertarian Socialist (abbbreviated LibSoc) Caucus, one of at least forty caucuses in the party. The existence of a Libertarian Socialist Caucus in the traditionally free-market party has caused some controversy, especially considering that the party also has an Anti-Socialist Caucus as well.
At
the 2018 Libertarian National Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana –
held from June 30th to
July 3rd,
2018 - Nicholas Sarwark retained his national chair position after
debating three challengers. Those challengers included Joshua Smith,
Christopher Thrasher, and Matt Kuehnel, a LibSoc Caucus member who's
also running for state house of representatives from Michigan's
22nd District.
Sparks
flew at the debate when chair candidate Joshua Smith called Kuehnel a
“confirmed communist”, and implied that Kuehnel's being a
socialist or communist meant the party was being infiltrated by
authoritarians. Kuehnel asserted the same about Smith, citing his
concern that Smith seems to be cozying up to the Alt-Right. While
Kuehnel insisted that he is an anarchist and a libertarian communist,
not an authoritarian communist, Smith pledged to help grow the party
by “reaffirming our principles, including property rights, to make
sure this country knows what we stand for.”
The
exchange between Joshua Smith and Matt Kuehnel exemplify one of the
most important debates going on right now in the Libertarian Party;
whether the party will support free markets or capitalism. You might
be thinking, “Aren't those the same thing?” Well, that's
certainly what followers of Ludwig von Mises, and the
anarcho-capitalists, want us
to believe. But is that true? Could it be possible that
capitalism is a
free-market system, but only when it's not “crony capitalism”,
as these people claim?
2.
The Debate Over the Libertarian Party Platform
The
Libertarian Party (L.P.) of the United States was founded in 1971.
The following year, the party held a convention in Denver, Colorado,
nominated John Hospers for the presidency and Tonie Nathan for the
vice-presidency, and laid out its national platform for the first
time.
In
1972, the Statement of Principles of the L.P.'s platform originally
read, “People... should be left free by government to deal with one
another as free traders on a free market; and the resultant economic
system, the only one compatible with the protection of man's rights,
is laissez-faire capitalism.”
However,
at the L.P.'s 1974 national convention in Dallas, Texas, the
Statement of Principles was modified, so as to read, “People...
should be left free by government to deal with one another as free
traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible
with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.”
Thus,
“man's rights” was changed to “individual rights” (to reflect
the need to make that language more inclusive and gender-neutral),
and “laissez-faire capitalism” was changed to “the free
market”. This change was part of what came to be known as the
Dallas Accord, an attempt to unite factions within the L.P..
This
conflict between socialist-leaning libertarians and
capitalist-leaning libertarians is by no means a new thing; it has
been going on since the party's infancy. Not only does this economic
divide exist within the party, it also affects the conversations the
party is having about whether the party should favor a minimal state
(by whatever definition) or else the abolition of the state
altogether.
Libertarian
socialists and anarcho-capitalists have somewhat different ideas
about what a state looks like, and different ideas about which
economic systems are most strongly associated with statism and
control. They also have very different ideas about whether the
presence of a statist government helps protect and foster an
environment of economic growth, or whether it instead
fundamentally interferes
with voluntary
exchange, the free flow of labor and capital, and the spontaneous
adjustment of prices according to the laws of supply and demand.
The
so-called “right-libertarians” insist that terms like
“capitalism”, “property rights”, and “self-ownership”
should be included in the L.P. platform; while “left-libertarians”
are more likely to question the rhetoric of self-ownership, question
what makes property ownership legitimate, and question whether
explicitly endorsing “capitalism” could lead to the oppression of
people who wish to practice socialism voluntarily.
At
the 2006 Libertarian National Convention in Portland, Oregon,
delegates deleted a whopping 46 planks from the party's then 61-plank
platform. This change came to be known as “the Portland massacre”.
Delegates also added the sentence “Government exists to protect the
rights of every individual including life, liberty and property.”
While
right-libertarians may rejoice at the addition of this sentence –
being that it arguably reflects a desire to explicitly endorse
property rights – it is troublesome for all libertarians,
because it arguably justifies the existence of the government, based
on the idea that if government was created with the intention of
protecting life, liberty, and property, then it should continue to do
so. But on the other hand, it might simply mean that if government
must exist, then it should only do basic things, like protect life,
liberty, and property.
Radicals
and anarchists in the party weren't pleased by what came soon after
this change; an influx of constitutionalists and
libertarian-conservatives into the party, which appeared to be the
result of the L.P.'s new embrace of property rights and government
protection of individual rights.
People
like Bob Barr (the 2008 presidential nominee) and judge Jim Gray (the
2012 vice-presidential nominee) rubbed these radical and anarchist
libertarians the wrong way. One such radical was 2008 presidential
candidate Christine Smith, who said in advance of Bob Barr's
impending nomination, “Put a real libertarian on the ballot”,
while also criticizing Barr's history with the C.I.A. and his “yes”
vote on the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.
The
Portland massacre arguably set the stage for the recent influx of
Alt-Righters - and Trump supporters who think they're libertarians -
into the L.P., likely spurred-on by the party's refusal to distance
itself from Ron Paul (the L.P.'s 1988 presidential nominee before and
after being a Republican, who continues to hire and associate with
racial supremacists).
Another
issue dividing people in the L.P. along left-vs.-right
lines, is whether the party was wise to nominate Gary Johnson for
president for the second time in 2016, after he said that he would
have signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even though it prohibited
discrimination in “public accommodations” (restaurants, theaters,
hotels, etc.,
which serve
members of the public). Right-libertarians view these properties as
private, and believe that they should be run according to the rules
set by the owner, rather than by government.
However,
it's not just the farthest-right members of the party who oppose
Johnson on this issue; in fact, Gary Johnson was the only one of the
L.P.'s five presidential candidates who refused to condemn the 1964
C.R.A. as a violation of the rights of property owners. While Johnson
refused to explain the reasoning for his position during the party's
five-way presidential debate, during that campaign he told a crowd in
Utah that as president, he would not be prepared to regress on that
issue, or go back in progress, on what he considered to be an
important civil right.
I
personally believe that Johnson's position on the 1964 C.R.A. should
not disqualify him from nomination, that the Dallas Accord helped the
party, and that the changes made in Portland in 2006 had some
negative consequences. I would like to see the party pursue “Bottom
Unity” - cooperation between all libertarian
philosophies, right or left – and bring more radicals, anarchists,
and even libertarian socialists, into the fold.
While
more radicals could arguably lead to people leaving the party, the
only people likely to be upset by this, are the exact people whose
“authoritarian entryism” we are concerned about. These
flag-waving bootlickers, who believe that evil is necessary, will not
be missed by anyone. At least not anyone who is serious about making
sure that the party supports freedom against force, instead of just a
merciful-enough form of tyranny that tries to achieve freedom through
enforcement.
People
who make excuse after excuse for the state, and for harsh and
exclusionary immigration and borders measures which discriminate on
the basis of national origin, have no business making public policy,
let alone business in a party which supports non-discrimination
in the public sphere (as well as individual civil liberties,
including the right to a fair legal process, and equal
justice under the law). These are the kinds of people whom we
should hope are
encouraged to leave the party - whether due to an influx of
anarchists and socialists or not - so that they stop tainting the
Libertarian Party with a bad reputation through associating with it.
3. The Debate Over Economic Systems and Property
Although
the Libertarian Party platform now supports property rights, and
seems ambivalent about whether government is necessary, it
nevertheless excludes the term capitalism. Instead, it supports free
markets and voluntary exchange. The term “laissez
faire”
- literally French for “let them do”, referring to producers, but
more accurately, “leave them be” or “leave them alone” - is
no longer part of the platform, but its meaning (or at least its
connotation) is retained through the inclusion of the phrase “free
market”.
Therefore,
it could easily be argued that the Libertarian Party did stop
supporting “capitalism”, at least in name, just three years after
the party was founded. Thus, it wouldn't be a big leap to infer -
from the facts that the party supports free markets and voluntary
exchange, and that it explicitly excluded the word “capitalism” -
that the party is against
capitalism.
After
all, there are non-capitalist
economic systems which support “property rights” - again, at
least in
name –
but which do not support capitalism. These include Mutualism,
Georgism, anarchism, and libertarian socialism. All of these (except,
arguably, the latter) might be perfectly willing to support a
libertarian society or a system of voluntary exchange, if not for
right-wing libertarians' insistence that that is
exactly the “free-market capitalism” towards which they wish to
strive.
In
my opinion, capitalism is compatible with neither free markets nor a
libertarian society. If free markets are what Rothbardian
“anarcho-capitalists” (“AnCaps”) and Misesian “free-market
capitalists” want us to believe they are, then market “freedom”
allows people to own things they didn't earn. Capitalists believe
that it's acceptable to accrue unearned income through speculation;
through collusion and strategic combination to establish oligopolies;
and through profit, rent, interest, and usury; claiming the “right
of increase” to justify it. These practices have little, if anything, to do with entrepreneurship and meritocracy.
Essentially,
capitalists believe that it's not a
violation of the Non-Aggression Principle (N.A.P.) to collude with
other property owners to make money by excluding people from what
they need, and that exploiting people's labor doesn't violate the
N.A.P.. This is because capitalists believe that working for
employers is always voluntary, because the value of our labor is
subjective, so therefore the laborer's rights are not violated
because they are not directly aggressed, nor threatened, into working
for an employer. Additionally, because capitalists believe (or, more
accurately, assume) that
working for oneself, earning one's needs through foraging and hunting
and gathering, and otherwise getting by while avoiding working for
other people, are viable options; viable alternatives to selling
one's labor. When it comes to rent, capitalists believe that a person
has the choice of living anywhere else, so therefore the housing unit
to which they pay rent is a matter of their personal choice.
Libertarian
socialists, of course, reject that
pro-capitalism argument, and believe that it is an
N.A.P. violation to use any sort
of pressure to get people to give up any part of the product of their
labor (or their full rights thereto). Socialists believe that
capitalists use coercion and exploitation as tools to put people into
states of duress, such that they are indirectly threatened into
settling for working for some particular employer and living in some
particular housing unit.
To
repeat, workers
and renters are not directly threatened; rather, they are indirectly
and implicitly coerced. While nature itself offers the possibility of
abundance, it also imposes the inevitable risk of starvation if
what's produced is not efficiently and equitably received. Whether or
not they directly benefit from the tyranny and largess of the state,
and from its historical enclosures of the commons, private
owners and capitalists coerce laborers and renters into accepting bad
terms of employment and shoddy living arrangements.
Landlords
and employers do this by extending the
threat which is potentially posed
by nature, to people near them - using the Pauline, colonial, and
Leninist maxim "He who does not work shall not eat" - in
order to issue an implicit threat
to laborers and workers. This threat coerces them, under duress, to
"choose" to accept the least oppressive or most convenient
employment opportunity, and to assent
to, and settle
for,
the least shabby apartment, or living arrangement of least
resistance. Which is occasionally living
where one works,
which - due to the fact that the laborer is essentially earning money
to buy his way off of living on someone else's private property - can
bear many similarities to indentured servitude.
Capitalism
relies on convincing people that things are
worth less than the cost of producing them, and that people are
worth whatever the cost of supporting their survival is.
Additionally, that people should endorse the faulty premise of
self-ownership, which arguably uses rhetoric that reduces human
beings to mere pieces of "owned" property. In my opinion,
this line of thinking seems a little too closely associated with the
notion that it is permissible to contractually sell oneself into
slavery. Any true "anarcho"-capitalist ought to know that
without the state, nobody would be able to enforce such a contract.
If a private, voluntary contract enforcement agency tried to enforce
such an "agreement", free people who understand that this
is wrong would use their boycott power, and if need be, even come to
the aid of those who are unable to defend themselves or refuse to. We
cannot assume that contractual slaves truly consent, simply because
they refuse to defend themselves from their "willing"
captors; this is not true consent, but assent;
submission, the giving up of struggle.
Capitalists
extract surplus rent and profit which they didn't earn rightfully,
because they didn't earn it through their
own labor,
but instead, somebody else's. Libertarian socialists see this -
rightfully, in my opinion - as a form of stealing, and thus,
an obvious violation
of the Non-Aggression Principle. This is
why capitalism is incompatible with voluntary exchange; because
capitalism relies on involuntary exchange.
It relies on veiled threats - the implicit threat of starvation on
the street - against those who refuse to sell their labor, and
against homeless vagrants who trespass upon private property (which
they do because they cannot help but do so, having no private
property of their own).
Although
I once believed “anarcho-capitalism” to be the fullest expression
of anarchism, I now understand that “individualist anarchism”
and “market anarchism”
are distinct schools of thought. That is why I no longer support
the belief that these are inevitable features of capitalism,
whether in a stateless society or under
the supervision of government or the state.
4.
Wealth Acquisition: Chrematistics vs. Economics
Capitalism
is usually defined as an economic system in which the means of
production are owned in private hands. The operation of those
privately-owned means of production for profit, and the establishment
of a strong system of property rights, are often included in that
definition.
Left-leaning
libertarians, on the other hand – like those who describe
themselves as “Bleeding Heart Libertarians” (the name of a
left-libertarian blog) – say Markets
Not Capitalism (the
name of a collection of libertarian and anarchist essays, edited by
Bleeding Heart Libertarians contributors Gary E. Chartier and Charles
W. Johnson).
To
these so-called “left-wing market-anarchists” (or “free-market
anti-capitalists”, or “market-oriented
social-anarchists”), supporting markets while opposing
capitalism is about supporting the voluntary exchange of goods and
services, but without endorsing
a necessarily for-profit system, or any system in which private
owners have little to no responsibilities to their communities.
Capitalism
allows people to acquire through “chrematistics”, which Aristotle
considered form of wealth acquisition which is less likely to be
“natural” than economics. Chrematistics, in Aristotle's
conception, can be either “natural” or “artificial”, but
compared to economics, it is more likely to result in acquisition
purely for the sake of acquisition (which can lead to hoarding,
conspicuous consumption, waste, destruction, and to production that
aids in achieving these ends).
Economics,
on the other hand – coming from the root oikos, meaning
“household” - literally refers to the art, study, and
science of household wealth management. Economics thus has a closer
association with the earning of income through labor, which,
according to Aristotle, is an arguably more “natural” form of
wealth acquisition. Economist Henry George coined the term "unearned
income" (the opposite of earned
income)
to describe these more "unnatural" forms of acquisition.
It could be argued that, as forms of wealth acquisition, socialism focuses on economics, while capitalism focuses on chrematistics. Socialism - in which people fully own the things they need, and can trade them away at will because they fully own them, and thus don't need to ask nor pay anyone for permission to do so - focuses on the earning of face value through labor, for the benefit of the household. On the other hand, capitalism - with its rent, interest, profit, and usury - creates value through the manipulation of value of itself, rather than through earning. This is done through subtly coercing people into depending on employers and landlords for their needs, and into giving up their right to own in exchange for the "convenience" of renting, which deprives them of the full right to use and trade their possessions as they please (because they're mere possessions registered to and owned by someone else, rather than their actual property).
Although
capitalism is a chrematistic form of wealth acquisition, market-based
systems of free voluntary exchange do not have to be. As long as they
are not rigged, and as long as we actively
free the
markets (i.e., create "freed markets", instead of just
calling the rigged markets we have now "free" for
convenience's sake), then voluntary exchange can thrive. That's
because only when the markets are not rigged to support capitalism
over free markets and socialism, can people have the freedom to
exchange things that fully
belong to them,
and to nobody else who's trying to extort them for the privilege of
using or occupying those things.
5.
Libertarian Capitalism vs. Libertarian Socialism
Capitalism
makes no demand that the earner play any role in the defense, nor the
upkeep, of his property claim, nor that he frequently use it. Nor
does capitalism insist that an owner actually acquire a parcel of
landed property through his own labor - without stealing or killing
or kicking people off their land - and without buying it from gangs
of organized criminals who stole and killed in order to get it.
Anyone who knows about the enclosure of the commons, the Lockean
proviso, the principle “price the limit of cost”, and the ideas
of absentee property ownership and usufructory (use-based) property
rights, will tell you that.
The
Non-Aggression Principle cannot permit the acquisition, nor the
keeping, of property which was stolen, and which rightfully belongs
to someone else. Nor can it logically permit the transfer of stolen
property, especially not
for profit. While left-libertarians routinely cite the enclosure of
the English commons, and episodes of mass displacement of people in
other societies, as the obvious reason as to why “rent is theft”,
capitalists often deliberately ignore the idea that conquest – and
buying conquered land from tyrannical, genocidal governments – is
neither a fair nor a free way to acquire wealth and property.
Not
only are free market economics and voluntary exchange inconsistent
with capitalism; they are also inconsistent with unlimited
property rights.
Capitalists often make fantastical, unenforceable claims to property,
such that they are practically unlimited as to what a private owner
can do with the resources on his property (whether it's their
possessions, the groundwater and soil and minerals beneath the
surface, or even living things dwelling on it).
The
capitalist view has historically been one which has lacked any
semblance of a feeling of responsibility to assistance in the
maintenance of the ecological quality of its surroundings, on the
surface of the planet which sustains all of our lives. It treats
living things – plant, animal, and human alike – as if they were
dead pieces of property, to be commodified and capitalized-on.
But
not only are unlimited property rights inconsistent with free
exchange; unlimited property rights are inconsistent with themselves.
The construction of the planned wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is
interfering with the already existing private property rights of
homeowners living near the border. This wall,
whether completed or not, will obstruct the free flow of travelers,
workers, and capital; not only of people who are trying to come into
the United States without permission, but also of United States
citizens – white and Hispanic alike – who live near the border,
but who may soon become enclosed;
walled-off from their places of employment and from half of their
community.
Contrary
to capitalists' claims that socialism, like statism, enables people
to be lazy and irresponsible, and live off of the production of other
people, capitalism is
just as likely to enable this lifestyle; just for the lucky few,
instead of for large numbers of people. Including people who could
stand to benefit by working fewer hours, but engaging in more
efficient production.
Capitalism
allows lazy people to make money that they didn't earn through their
own effort, but by colluding with other property owners to exclude
people from their property. It also allows irresponsible
entrepreneurs to make malinvestments, and to externalize the costs of
those improper investments onto unaware actors.
Under
statism, people are allowed to do this at
taxpayer expense; because
the people's taxes subsidize their businesses, and pay for their
police protection, and for their L.L.C. status (which confers a
privilege to be immune from legal responsibility). Additionally,
landlords pay their mortgages off with our money, while they maintain
their investments without assuming any personal financial risk, and
bosses balance their checkbooks through profits which were supposed
to be the wages of workers.
A
right-libertarian might argue that what I have just described is
merely what capitalism does under
the current system (statism,
which we can't avoid). However, there are a few "anarcho-capitalist",
right-libertarian, and paleo-libertarian writers who have argued that
corporations, liability limitations, and patrolling officers
would still
exist in
the absence of a state (people like Murray Rothbard and Walter
Block). This ought to cast some doubt on the capitalists' dedication
to statelessness. Any "anarcho-capitalist" who disagrees
with those ideas should make those disagreements known, if he wishes
to be taken seriously.
6. The Social Safety Net, Basic Income, and Revolution
A
social safety net is just a Band-Aid on capitalism. A social safety
net is not socialism, no matter how large, robust, costly, or
inclusive it is. More taxes, and more free money from the government,
will not lead to socialism; it will only lead to a bigger welfare
state. It will also lead to more capitalism, because more and more
people will fall victim to the foolish ideas that capitalism (rather
than land and labor) is the source of all production, and that the
capitalist economy is the only way to produce enough to sustain the
government and the large welfare state.
That
is why a universal basic income guarantee (U.B.I., or B.I.G.) will
not be successful. First, because U.B.I. programs are destined to
fail, due to the inflating effects which are bound to be the result
of such a policy. Second, basic
income "experiments" are
destined to fail, for the simple reason that a universal B.I.G.
is supposed to be universal. That
is, funds are supposed to be distributed to everyone in
society, no matter how rich or how poor they are. So of
course the
basic income experiment in Canada failed; it only benefited several
thousand people, and everyone who was excluded from those benefits
had to suffer the negative consequences of not receiving any funds.
Third,
a U.B.I. will not be successful; not unless and until all businesses
– large and small alike – lose every single one of their
subsidies, bailouts, patents and trademarks, L.L.C. statuses, trade
promotions (through import tariffs), utilities discounts, easy-credit loans, deposit
insurance, and police protection. Otherwise, once we have the U.B.I.,
the only things we'll be able to buy, will be made by companies that
are protected from failure, and which keep themselves afloat using
our taxpayer money, whether we choose to buy from them in person or
not.
Still,
despite what Lysander Spooner has suggested on the matter, the
right-libertarians insist that we are free, simply because we get to
choose from which of these masters (read: bosses and landlords) we
are to toil. Remember, we don't just work for our bosses, we work for
our landlords too.
I
suspect that a transition from capitalism to socialism would likely
not happen without a revolution; not even if that capitalism system
already features a social safety net and an extensive bureaucracy,
like the American system does now (which, by the way, could also be
adequately described as mercantilistic, or as approaching a state of
autarky).
I
believe that an orderly, legitimate transition
– that is to say, a legal transition
- from capitalism to socialism, would only be likely and conceivable
in a fully functioning liberal democracy. Therefore, a nation like
the United States, – with such strong traditions of republicanism,
capitalism, private property rights, and anti-communism – would
almost certainly not become socialist without a majority of support
among the political ruling class, the wealthiest handful of
citizens, and the
military and police.
“State
socialism” - a term associated with Prussian leader Otto von
Bismarck - aimed to find a compromise between socialism and
capitalism, essentially settling on a capitalist state with a social
safety net. Fascism, national socialism (Nazism), and other “Third
Way” systems, aimed to find a similar compromise (which, of course,
resulted in a wave of ultra-nationalism, and the rise of the Axis
Powers, leading up to World War II). Nevertheless, “libertarian”
capitalists should realize that socialism is compatible
with free markets, in addition to capitalism.
6.
Restoring the Libertarian Alliance with the Left
In
my opinion, the Libertarian Party should address issues like property
and economic systems in its platform. It should do this by making
conscious efforts to remove or edit passages which appear to suggest
that government is necessary, that the party needs to support
capitalism over socialism, or that the party's economic system is
anything other than one which focuses on voluntary exchange of
property which was justly acquired (rather than stolen and extorted,
even if that theft was done "legitimately" according to the
letter of the law).
I
hope that the delegates to the next Libertarian National Convention
amend the platform so as to even more resolutely declare that the
state is unnecessary, that it legalizes its own crime, and that
statism is fundamentally built on the same premise as terrorism (that
is, the use of violence in order to achieve political goals).
I
hope that this will assist in bringing more radicals and anarchists
into the fold of the libertarian movement, more "small-l"
libertarians into the L.P., and help restore our alliance with the
Bookchinite "libertarian communalists" and other anti-war
Leftists, with whom Libertarians were more closely aligned prior to
1980, when, as Agorist Samuel E. Konkin III described it, the
"Kochtopus" and the "Partyarchs" took the L.P.
over, and nominated wealthy industrialist David Koch for the vice
presidency after he donated half a million dollars to the L.P..
Making
the Libertarian Party into a big tent for libertarian socialists,
Georgists, Mutualists, and anarchists and radicals of all varieties,
will help achieve Karl Hess's dream; uniting American
right-libertarians with their natural allies, the vehemently
anti-statist, anti-war, anti-imperialist anarchists of the
libertarian left. This is not a libertarian-conservative "fusionist"
alliance, supporting "right-unity"; but rather a "bottom
unity" alliance, supporting "pan-anarchism" (that
is, panarchism),
and opposing all varieties of statism, imperialism, kyriarchy, and
aggression.
Mutualism
and mutualist anarchism seek a balance between socialism and free
markets - or
between socialism and voluntary exchange – rather than between
socialism and capitalism. Mutualism can provide a much more fertile
ground for agreement between socialists and free-marketers, than
neoliberal capitalism or “Third Way” systems ever could.
Notions
of unity and cooperation among anarchists can also provide
a balance between leftist and rightist economic systems. "Anarchy
without adjectives" is the idea that all kinds of anarchists
should work together, while "syncretic anarchism" is the
idea that various schools of anarchist thought can be combined,
united, and/or reconciled.
As
this line of thinking goes, if all anarchists agree to "live and
let live" in peace, then people would be free to choose to live
under any type of economic system they wish, as long as they do not
aim to force their views on anyone else, nor to make anyone else foot
the bill for their decisions or lifestyle. And if you can choose
which type of anarchism you want to live under, it's almost as if
that is a free choice you made in a market. And as long as you fully
compensate whomever is providing you with physical security and legal
defense, etc.,
for the expenses they incur, then your association with the
provider(s) is use-based; and based on a fee-for-service model. There
would be nothing "anti-free-market" going on in an
anarchist society.
Simply
put, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left should cooperate with
"anarcho-capitalists", but only with those who can
identify truly
voluntary participation
in capitalism and socialism when they see it. That is, only those who
agree to leave people alone, to assume for
themselves the
full costs and responsibilities of attempting to survive under
revolutionary, experimental, and untested economic systems and
conditions.
Thanks
to Cook County L.P. Chair Justin Tucker
for
the information about the early changes
to
the Libertarian Party Statement of Principles
Written
and Published on August 7th, 2018
Edited
and Expanded on August 8th, 2018
Edited on August 9th and 13th, 2018
Edited on August 9th and 13th, 2018
