Galvanizing Liberty Lovers

We liberty-lovers face a powerful and dangerous foe: the modern state. Yet we seem to end up fighting each other more often and more angrily. It’s a fact that in an ideological movement, small differences are crucial, but we really should try to be smart enough to avoid infighting as much as we do.

Consider: the two major parties are split into two or three different wings, but they mostly aim their invective across the aisle–at least in public. Libertarians and other adversaries of the state aim nearly as much at each other as they do at the state and its flunkies.

The liberty movement splits itself into at least five different groups, though of course there is some debate about where those lines are drawn, whether those lines are valid, and of course we argue about who actually is a part of the liberty movement.

For the purpose of this essay, I’m going to cast a fairly wide net, because right now the state is so goddamn enormous that we need all the help we can get. My goal here is to help people point themselves in the directions that hurt the state the most.

Let’s start with some classifications. I hate to contradict Lew Rockwell, but let’s assume there’s something to this classification by Cowen using Palmer’s book as a guide, and let’s even cast the net a little wider.

1. Rothbardian anarchists
2. CATO-style libertarians
3. Hayekians
4. Objectivists
5. Night-watchman minarchists
6. Old-school classical liberals

All six of these groups are generally in favor of less government power and less interference in the market. Especially right now, when there is no shortage of massive, intrusive governments around the world.

It may even be possible to split these groups up further–for example, the Rothbardian anarchists might be divided into a group that sees utility in the state trying to benefit its citizens while it continues to exist, and those who don’t. However, let’s gloss over that for now, in the interest of time.

Right now, we are all wasting energy fighting each other when we could be directing all of that energy at confounding the monster state and any or all of its terrible policies.

To start, let’s separate the movement into nonvoters and maybe-voters. (I intentionally refrain from calling any group of liberty-lovers voters.)

For those who are totally disillusioned with the system and are simply preparing for socialism’s inevitable collapse: I say go to it. I advise those who deliberately vote to hasten collapse to join this group instead. Those few minutes you spend voting are better spent doing what you do best. And, I suspect you’ll have more friends (and a clearer conscience) if you didn’t act to hasten the collapse, because a lot of relatively innocent people are going to be hurting like crazy when it happens.

Instead, create parallel economies. Undermine the fiat monetary system with gold and/or cryptocurrency. Create beautiful seeds of agorism around the world. Get your civil disobedience on, if that’s your bag. Create gray markets and network like crazy. When things fall down, we’re going to need them.

Work to decentralize those systems, or to concentrate liberty-lovers in a small area–whatever you’re best at and love more. Pull expertise from the maybe-voters when you have to–many of them secretly admire your bravery, and they have perhaps an impossible task.

For those who still wish to engage with the state and public policy, focus on your best qualities.

For example, the Objectivists. You have some great points to make about striving for liberty, free thought, and individualism in a world that wants you to be a drone. Focus on local policy and the welfare state. Make your clear arguments that man should not be forced to live for the sake of another man, while also remembering that no man should commit the indignity of demanding another man live for him. Promote the ideal of your country as a city on a hill, a shining beacon for the rest of the world to strive toward.

The Hayekians are coalition-builders. Take libertarian proposals for smaller-state solutions and find the support for those ideas and policies. Bring in disenfranchised groups and show them the utility of free exchange. Handle those splinter issues and promote libertarian solutions that have a chance at victory.

CATO-style libertarians have networks and some political clout. Make your policy proposals and analyses. When presented a policy choice, point at the more libertarian solution and explain why. Poke at the ideas of libertarianism to search for nuance and expose the public to them more often, and in novel ways.

The Rothbardian anarchists are too far from what is politically feasible to offer solutions that have a good chance to be implemented now. But that’s all right! Explain libertarian and anarchist principles in as clearly, persuasively, and purely as you can! Remember that practically everyone misunderstands the principles of liberty, so when a CATO person writes an article giving a “libertarian perspective on X” that you disagree with, don’t treat it as an attack, treat it as a puzzle. Most such articles are based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of freedom, so you can clearly and succinctly rebut them.

To the minarchists and classical liberals, do your best to reduce the state as far as you’re comfortable with. Promote resistance, nullification, civil disobedience, whatever you feel most effective at. There may come a day when you find yourself on the other side, but that’s all right. Think about how much better things will be then. Those improvements in all of our lives from cutting the state down to size will be more evidence for you then. We can have the argument about whether the state should build the roads when we reach that point.

Along the same lines, it’s least productive for each group to do the things most of the other groups disagree with. Nonvoters and maybe-voters don’t need to fight–let them work independently and interact when they see mutual benefit.

Go ahead and try to convince others that your path is right, but different people have their own perspectives and reasons for doing what they do. Liberty-lovers of group A trying to convince group B is way better than group A calling group B stupid. It’s rarely convincing.

Here are some of my thoughts on what each group should avoid.

The Objectivists say that there’s virtue in selfishness, so it’s time to put that into action. Avoid too much concern with foreign policy. It’s too easy to get tangled up in absurd historical controversies and your energies are so much better used getting the government out of the pockets and bedrooms of yourself, your friends, and your family.

The Hayekians need to be careful not to get swept into unproductive coalitions. Be vigilant! Your goal is to make people freer, happier, and more prosperous. Avoid trade-offs which increase state power in one place while hoping for a decrease elsewhere. The decreases rarely materialize. Consult the Rothbardians and soften their points to make them palatable for the normies. Consult the CATO people when you are faced with bad choices. Build those networks and coalitions, and use them to weaken the state.

The CATO-style libertarians need to stop worrying about the anarchists. Yes, they disagree with you on a lot. Yes, their policy proposals generally have no chance of getting a majority. But they’ll be the angel on your shoulder if you’ll let them. Go ahead: write, think, and play with libertarian ideas. Come up with unusual justifications and counter-intuitive conclusions. When you find yourself into a weird position, let their clarity and simplicity help you find your way out. Don’t antagonize them–they’re even more frustrated than you are, because they feel like they’re in a deeper hole.

The Rothbardians need to stop scaring the normies (at least a little… c’mon guys?!). Most people have been thoroughly indoctrinated into statism through years and years of propagandistic “education.” Yes, you can convert a few of them with your clear and simple arguments, but many are so deeply mired in double-think that they simply cannot accept anarchism now. Let the squishier libertarians push them in the right direction, you can focus on those who are close to seeing the light.

The minarchists and classical liberals need to avoid promoting principles with massive loopholes in them. It’s great that you think the government should only do these few things and nothing else, that the powers of the state are derived from the people except for taxation (which the people don’t actually have!), but that lets the camel’s nose into the tent.

Instead, minarchists can throw their hearts and minds at approaching their night-watchman state. Classical liberals can focus on the beautiful improvements on political theory that those thinkers made, while acknowledging that there might be ways to improve those ideas further, or achieve their ideals more fully than they were able to.

If we lovers of liberty would focus on what we’re best at and at working together when we agree, we’d make a lot more progress–at least, I think so. I’ve tried deliberately here to not single anyone out or use disparaging language against anyone. I haven’t even identified with any of the groups here, though you could probably figure out where I stand pretty easily by reading some more of my stuff.

Now, I have some final thoughts for all lovers of liberty, some things I think we all fail at sometimes, or, at least, fail to be aware of.

1. Watch your rhetoric and phrasing. We have enough trouble with Marxists talking about the “power” of voluntary organizations without someone using that same phrasing. Markets have utility, not power. Avoid using language that some two-bit collectivist can simply turn back on us.
2. Ignore bad-faith actors. There are plenty of people on the liberty and anti-liberty sides who simply act in bad faith. People more interested in stirring shit than getting anything done. People more interested in insulting and misrepresenting libertarians they disagree with than making positive change. Ignore these people. Don’t engage with them, because they are agents trying to split us lovers of liberty apart. They are, knowingly or unknowingly, state agents.
3. Focus on the fence-sitters. Know your audience, and aim your arguments for those who haven’t changed their minds. If you’re facing an audience with a significant hard-core anarchist base, by all means make those points. But if you’re dealing with a bunch of Depublicans and Remocrats, try to come up with arguments that might sway some of them.
4. Rally the base. There are tons of people who love liberty but don’t know a whole lot about it. There might be even more people who are ready to love liberty if they get the right argument. Don’t hesitate to say things the base will agree with. Even the choir needs to hear the sermon.
5. Assume mistakes were made in good faith, until evidence suggests otherwise. If someone writes an article talking about the “libertarian argument for X,” and you think it’s wrong, say so, but hold back on your attacks. Thought experiments are vital to libertarian thought, because we try to be so attentive to incentives and long-term consequences of policy. Failures in that thought process are inevitable. Call their arguments out, not them personally. If you think you have evidence that someone is acting in bad faith, look back to #2.
6. Finally, don’t be afraid to name names, but be civil (again, until bad faith is established). We’re all individualists here, so we need to gather information and history in order to make judgments. If So-and-so writes an article that you think is wrong, say so and cite him properly. There are better ways to bring his error to his attention than calling him a fascist idiot.

So, in conclusion, I think the liberty movement could make a lot more progress with more division of labor and less infighting. What do you think of my ideas for where different groups should focus? Am I completely barking up the wrong tree, or am I on to something?