How to Be Friends with a Libertarian: Protecting the 9th Amendment and Stopping the Regression of Freedom

      Most liberals - and many conservatives and progressives, too - like to justify depriving people of rights, based on the fact that some people lack rights, while other people are not using theirs.

     People like this will base their ideas about what we all should do, on the lowest common denominator of rights that somebody has. If one person lacks rights, then everybody else – so this line of logic goes - needs to have rights taken away from them, in order to make things equal. Or if a person tolerates one injustice, or has in the past, then they should tolerate other injustices in the future.

     They say, "If you need car insurance to own a car, then you should need health insurance because you own your body."

     Also, "If you take drugs from strangers, or eat McDonald's, then you should have no problem taking what's in the vaccine."

     Alternatively: "If you need a license to operate a car, then you should need a permit to operate a gun, because they're both deadly weapons."

     To that, I say "fuck that shit". The fact that you are wasting your freedoms does not mean that I have to give up mine.

     The idea that I should give one freedom up because I seemed to surrender another, is a false equivalency. In part, because it assumes that everybody thinks about rights, and connects them to each other, in the same way. It assumes that if they tolerate one thing, they should tolerate another. It assumes that people are ideologues who do and should behave predictably.

     What you see as me "surrendering a right" might just have been me making a decision. The only right you surrender, in the act of making a decision, is the right to know what will happen if you make a different decision. It does not mean your future decisions all have to be consistent, nor that they all have to conform to somebody else's ideas of consistent logic.

     The lines of logic used to justify this mode of thought do not even make sense. First, it's arguable whether we really "own" our bodies, or whether we are our bodies. Second, you can't avoid having a body as easily as you can avoid having a car or a gun.

     Third, a person has the freedom to put into their body anything they want, as long as they don't harm others. So if a person's feelings about drugs, food, and medicine do not conform to your preconceived notions about how a person should make decisions about health, then just remember... that is somebody else's body you are talking about.

     Mind your own business. If they want your advice on health or safety, then they will ask you for it.

     Moreover, there are about eight hundred toxic chemicals which are inside of our bodies right now, many of which are legal and F.D.A.-approved. Some came into our lungs after we breathed polluted air; others came from cheaply made consumer products. And some of them are more common and thus more difficult to avoid than others.

     Should the fact that I tolerate one toxic chemical (because I can't avoid it), mean that I should tolerate a second? What about a third? And so on, until I'm tolerating the fact that my body is full of 800 of them? Simply because I smoke weed, or take LSD at a festival, or eat Burger King every once in a while? Hell no! [I mean, if I'm smoking cigarettes, feel free to remind me that several hundred toxic chemicals are found in them. Especially if I started smoking near you without asking you if it's OK first. As Ron Paul has said, "Freedom is the right to tell people things they don't want to hear."]

     The fact that you were recently exposed to a certain level of toxic chemicals, does not, and should not, mean that you ought to be exposed to more (unless that is your wish). If anything, it means that you have probably had all the toxins that you can take for a while, and that you deserve to take a break from being full of toxins.

     Stop expecting people to go on suicide missions solely for the sake of appearing to remain consistent to you. Just as "the Constitution is not a suicide pact", neither is a friendship. We should build each other up - and say "I believe you and I encourage you if you say you're trying to quit this substance" - instead of knocking each other down and holding them to how "cool" or "chill" or "lax" they have been in the past.

     Life is about more than chilling out, and tolerating other people's (or your own) bad behavior and moral back-sliding. It is about defeating evildoers, and overcoming the obstacles necessary to achieve your goals. We can't afford the costs of holding each other back.

     The Obamacare mandate to purchase health insurance is not currently being enforced, because it's dying in the courts. So why not use this opportunity to say "If I don't need health insurance (to own my own body), then I shouldn't need car insurance either"?

     We don't even really "need" health insurance, nor car insurance; we just think we do because people older than we are, made laws that require us to have those things. You don't die if you run out of money, or insurance; you die if you run out of air, water, food, and medicine, or if one or more of your major organ systems collapse.

     If we don't need insurance or money to live, and alternative accreditation systems exist outside the state and yet are not in violation of its laws - then why not say "I don't need a license or a permit to do anything, because I was born free, and because of the content of the 9th Amendment"?

     [Note: Amendment IX affirms that we have rights which are not listed in the Constitution. These are called "unenumerated rights", which is distinct from the concept of Congress having unenumerated powers.]

     We rarely cite the fact that others are more free than we are, any more, to justify getting more freedom instead of less.

     [Note: an important exception to this, is the 14th Amendment incorporation clause, which empowers people to have their freedoms recognized in their states, because other states have recognized their own citizens' freedom to do the same, and the federal government cannot logically say that something is a right in one state but not in another.]

     In the Trump era, many of his supporters have used the fact that other countries are "shitholes" run by tyrants, who mistreat dissidents and people who try to come into their countries illegally, to justify gassing protesters and gassing people at the border. This is not acceptable; it is "what-about-ism". It is the idea that if somebody else did something worse than what you did, then what you did is OK.

     Likewise, when someone tries to tell you "You should put up with Y injustice because you put up with X injustice in the past", just tell them either "I was wrong" or "I could tolerate X, but I can't tolerate Y, and that's my decision." Unless it affects them directly, they have no right to interfere in your decision. They can complain all they want, because they have free speech, but they cannot rightfully interfere unless you betrayed them or harmed them, or your decision will harm them.

     People who use one example where we tolerated a deprivation of freedom, or a slipping of standards, in order to excuse or rationalize or justify another, should stop talking about what “we” supposedly have to do, and start making their own decisions about their own personal food and health choices and about their safety. Otherwise they might as well be inviting other people's advice, because they can't live without meddling in other people's decision-making and without subjecting them to nonsensical lines of logic that limits their freedom to change their mind.

     If you don't want people telling you what to do, then don't tell others what to do!

     You do not get to tell others that they have to accept ever-declining standards, just because they have made several poor or inconsistent decisions in their lives. You do not have the right to berate someone who changes their mind, unless you have signed a contract with them.

     We do not have to do jack shit. The only thing we need to do is stop writing laws that make it harder and more expensive for us - and more profitable for the government - for us to exercise our rights.

     If you respect me and my rights – and want your own rights respected – then you will respect my boundaries and the fact that I am an individual (and the fact that individuals, alone, make decisions), and you will leave me alone to fix my own problems, and refrain from giving me unwanted advice or pressuring me into accepting unwanted assistance from you or the government.

     If you want to respect my boundaries, as a libertarian – that is, as a person who values the need for informed consent above all else – then you will not aggress against me nor threaten me, you will not pressure me to spend money that I do not have or haven't earned yet, and you will not tell me that I have to sacrifice my boundaries or my needs in order to hang out with you.

     This includes my right to safety, and to peace and quiet, and to staying out of handcuffs!

     If you respect me, and my right to be informed about what's going on around me, then you will not steal or commit other crimes while you are around me without notifying me first. And that should go whether the crime or infraction has victims or not.

     I can't tell you how many times I've been shopping with friends, only to discover at the checkout line that they intended to steal. It creates a huge imposition on me and puts me in a dilemma! It is not fair to spring something like that onto somebody with little notice.

     It's not that I think someone shouldn't consider shoplifting if they're desperate, and I am certainly not trying to defend the police or wealthy sellers and big corporations. If you are my friend, and you need something so badly that you're considering stealing it, then I will buy it for you! Just ask me. I don't want either of us to go to jail!

     If you have a child or a pet to take care of, and you're in public holding on to them while committing crimes, then you are not a responsible person. Whoever you're with, while you're stealing or getting arrested, is going to have to figure out what to do with your dog or your kid while you're in jail.

     The level of carelessness that some people make excuses for having in their lives is really astounding sometimes. Not that I am entirely blameless. I can't tell you how many places I've possessed marijuana without getting the permission of the proprietor. But I at least know well enough not to use my family and friends as getaway cars after buying marijuana. You have to think about the consequences of your actions, from the perspective of the worst possible way it could potentially affect someone.

     You may say, "Yeah, but it's not wrong." So what? Something "not being wrong" is not a good enough reason, in and of itself, to do something. You should want to do things that are right, not just things that are "not wrong".

     Who do you think pays for the losses from shoplifting? Insurance companies, if the stores are insured. But those costs don't come out of the C.E.O.'s pocket; they're borne (like the majority of the company's costs) by the company's lowest paid employees. Those are the people who get shafted in order to pay for other things the company thinks it needs. 

     But do companies really need security, and on-premises detention of shoplifters? No, they need to lower their fucking prices to something we can afford, so the markets can clear, so the foods aren't left rotting on the shelves, necessitating toxic preservatives that harm our health, in order to keep them "fresh" and marketable.

     So if we're at a store together, please, don't make me into your unwilling accomplice, and risk me going to jail, just because you want an extra item in your pantry. Even if it's a gift for me! I didn't ask for it.

    Don't fucking do things to people without their consent and knowledge, whether it affects them positively or negatively!  [Unless, of course, you're giving them a surprise gift and you know they like surprises, and aren't bothered by the attention involved in having their birthday celebrated, etc..] Do this for the simple reason that "one man's trash is another man's treasure".

     In economics, affecting people positively or negatively without their awareness and consent, is called externalizing transaction costs. You are imposing a cost upon them, as the price of hanging out with you. That price takes the form of bullshit surprises that you spring on people, which make them uncomfortable, and pressure them into helping you over helping themselves.

     This is called being interpersonally exploitative. In each transaction and social interaction, we should make sure that the interests of everybody involved, are aligned; but that doesn't mean that each person should feel empowered to shamelessly take advantage of every situation to ensure that they benefit the most.

     More reasons not to give people gifts for which they didn't ask, include the facts that: 1) what you think will help a person, might be something they think of as causing them to become more dependent upon you for that thing; and 2) they might not know whether and how to get you back for it.

     When we shop together, I don't want you to get arrested, but if you act like an idiot, and it's either you or me, the fact that you are my friend does not obligate me to cover for you. Certainly not instead of myself. Certainly not when I would have to make up a lie and put myself in danger for a friend's stupid thoughtless decision. Shoplifting is not always wrong, but that doesn't make it a good idea that's worth going to jail for! If you're going to steal, and there's nothing I can do about it, then at least let me know ahead of time, so I can run, or else be prepared to sock a security guard in the face.

     Do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to have to consider asking your friend, "Hey, uh... You're not gonna steal from Wal-Mart, are you?" before there's any indication that they would, because of their past history? Do you know how awkward it is to ask someone, "You paid for that, right?" or "You're gonna pay for that, right"? and hear them shush you?

     I don't play that shit. That creates an imposition on me to shut up about your bullshit. You do not have the right to get your friends in trouble and then pass it off as harmless fun. Some people are trying to work and maintain normal jobs and have families and avoid jail. That's different from being a buzzkill. If you have a child, then you shouldn't be stealing in front of them, unless you're prepared to defend that decision with force.

     Not that I don't have sympathy for people who steal, or for my friends. If you're reading this and you're thinking, "Just don't hang out with people who steal, or are likely to steal", then to that, I say, "Easier said than done, asshole." At least half of Americans are living from paycheck to paycheck. Nobody has any money. Shoplifting is the least of my concerns, morally. But that doesn't give people the right to make me into an unwilling accomplice of theft without my consent or knowledge.

      Consensual transactions and interactions require informed consent, which requires knowledge of the choices available, and a total lack of external pressure, and the right to make your decision final without others continuing to ask you a question you have answered over and over again.

     Don't ask me if I want to do something until I say yes. That is "not taking 'no' for an answer". That may be acceptable in sales, but it is certainly not acceptable in the bedroom, and it shouldn't be acceptable in public social interactions.

     Not taking "no" for an answer sexually is what a rapist does; so take "no" for an answer socially, or you will be the social version of a rapist.

     Voluntary exchange requires mutual benefit, in addition to consent. If someone is sacrificing in order to participate in a social interaction or an economic exchange, then it should be asked: “Why is that person sacrificing, while others are not?”

     But this should be asked, not in order to punish those who are not sacrificing, but rather, in order to make sure that nobody is sacrificing (unless it is necessary and they genuinely want to).

     If a social interaction, or an economic transaction, does not benefit all people involved and affected, then it should not occur, and the people involved should go their separate ways. That is how you produce free decisions that are also fair.

     Decisions which don't harm anyone, but do benefit everyone involved (or at least they don't harm anyone involved), are called Pareto improvements, after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto. These are the necessary conditions for mutually beneficial voluntary exchange.

     We must end the culture of pressuring others to accept lower standards. We must stop brow-beating each other into prioritizing consistency over self-growth and self-improvement.

     We must also stop tolerating people who we reasonably believe are deliberately ignoring our boundaries just to mess with us or to test us. 

     It's time to start respecting others. It was always time to respect others. But if we don't bother to find out what each other's boundaries, limitations, and needs are, then we aren't going to understand how to respect them.

     People need to communicate with each other. We can't just have people committing crimes around their friends and having awkward conversations in the middle of the store about whether we'll be paying for this.

     We can't have protesters and counter-protesters coming up to each other and trying to quash each other's right to be there while they're right there on the sidewalk and there are no police officers around to resolve the dispute.

     We can't go on just not coordinating with each other. We must deliver on our promises. But we also must find away to avoid punishing people too severely for changing their minds, and one of the ways to do this is to make sure we are not pressuring the people around us to set unrealistic goals.

     And we must not expect others to allow their moral standards to slip just because they have agreed to hang out with us.

     This is how we stop the back-slide, and the regression, of freedom. This is how we stop a society desirous of freedom, from collapsing into a "slippery slope" to tyranny that refuses to recognize that freedom is (almost) free, and doesn't require any trial by fire. We are born free and innocent, so why should we come into the world owing anybody anything?

     The only cost of freedom is the effort we expend respecting others' freedom. The only costs of freedom are self-responsibility, self-control, humility, and adequate communication with others.

     This is how to respect me. What about you? Does this sound unreasonable? Or just familiar?

     To read a more in-depth discussion of Ninth Amendment issues, and how license and permit systems limit our freedoms, please read my 2015 / 2016 article "Papers, Please!?: Freedom vs. Permission", which is available at the following link:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2015/12/papers-please-freedom-vs-permission.html

Based on a post published in early January 2021

Edited and expanded on January 7th, 2021

Capitalism is Incompatible with Free Markets, Voluntary Exchange, and Libertarianism

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 30^th to July 3^rd, 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 22^nd 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