A Personal Plea for Liberty
Since you’re on Bureaucrash.com odds are that you’re a good person, or someone you know believes that’s the case and therefore has invited you to check out us and the ideas we advocate. Basically, we work to bring about a freer world - where individuals can act, so long as they don’t harm anybody else. We want to live in a world where rights are respected, where prosperity is created so people’s standards of living can increase, and where there is peace among individuals and nations.
The key question then becomes: What are the best means to achieve such a world? I’d like to share a perspective which I believe offers the best chance of accomplishing these goals. You may not entirely agree with it, and that’s OK, but please take a moment to read this post with an open mind.
It starts with a simple yet powerful concept: We each own ourselves. We - not some bureaucrat or politician or other member of the political class - each know best how to live our lives, spend our money, and raise our families.
Yet, today the scope of government is so pervasive that it touches virtually every aspect of our lives, coddling us from cradle to grave. Laws and regulations - inefficient at best, counterproductive at worst - increasingly stifle innovation and entrepreneurship, and more than that, they strip us of our individual freedom and responsibility, harming those least-well off.
This is not because the person elected has a “D” or “R” in front of his or her name, but because of the structure of the system. Those in the political class grow their spheres of influence by increasing their budgets and staff. Workers in the productive sector attempt to do the same, but the difference is that those in the productive sector have to respond to consumers: if they don’t, they’ll fail, whereas those in the political sector are sheltered from competition and their budgets come from taxpayer money. The result: Government grows, becoming larger and more authoritarian, and compounding it’s inefficiencies, without check.
“What about the bailout and companies that lobby the government?” you ask. Companies today seek favors from the government only because it has such a large scope and can dole out protectionism and handouts. If the scope of government were smaller, companies would have to actually provide you with something of value to stay afloat.
Electing different, forward-thinking people to government will not change its structure. The solution is to lessen the scope of government in our lives, so that we can live more free.
A lot of us have ancestors that fled oppressive governments. Fled war. Fled intolerance. Today, many of the same threats are reappearing. Under the auspices of fighting a war on terrorism, a war on drugs, or a war on poverty, government has shredded the Constitution and usurped our rights. It comes down to this: When government grows, the freedom to live your life as you see fit shrinks. It’s an inverse relationship.
Fortunately, many people are starting to recognize this and are pushing back against the current unjust and absurd arrangement that favors government power at the expense of your individual rights. I hope you are one of them, because people’s lives and liberties are at stake. If so, I encourage you to check out the links below and share this message with those in your sphere.
We can make a difference, one person at a time. Join us!
This is a fight worth having.
-Pete
P.S. And if you have thoughts, feedback, or questions about any of this, please let me know.
For More:
- Bureaucrash Social. With over 1,600 freedom fighters from 65 countries it’s been described as “a vibrant online activist community” and is the heart and soul of our operation. Or, just subscribe to our RSS feed (on the right side of the screen) for your daily fix of freedom in a world where such a perspective is too often drowned out by those advocating more government control over our lives.
- Bureaucrash’s Intel overviews, which outline our stances by issue
- The Bureaucrash Manifesto (the first video below)
- The Philosophy of Liberty by our friends at the International Society for Individual Liberty (the second video below)
- The World’s Smallest Political Quiz hosted by the Advocates for Self-Government
- “The State” from For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard
- “I, Pencil” by the late Leonard Reed
- “Delusions Here in the Land of Dollars and Dunkin’ Donuts” by Crasher Sovereign on his personal blog, the dignity of struggle
[...] sure of where to turn for an alternative. That’s where you can play a vital role. Share the following link far and wide (email it, post it as your Facebook status, Twit it, etc.) or if you have other text [...]
[...] Bureaucrash - Join the Resistance » Blog Archive » A Personal Plea for Liberty (tags: bureaucrash liberty appeal) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Thai government cuts taxes to revive economy « AsiaTax BlogAs economic problems pile up, Obame looks at tax cutKiwi Stimulus SmartsNew Year’s resolution for Obama: Cut corporate taxes [...]
[...] to share a perspective which I believe offers the best chance of accomplishing these goals…(read the rest here) Tags: bureaucrash, bureaucrash social, Freedom, government coercion, [...]
Excellent commentary, Pete. I wish more of today’s leaders would take liberty seriously, especially in these times of rapidly expanding government powers.
I agree that a very limited government is best, but I wonder if such an arrangement is sustainable. America was originally set up to favor individualism and free enterprise–only to multiply in size many times. Our Founders would be appalled at the tyranny imposed by the likes of FDR, LBJ, Bush, and–soon–Obama.
If one were to compose a book about the history of humanity, one underlying theme–if not THE underlying theme–would be the oppression of individuals by governments. So, my question is this: Can we create a functioning society free of government altogether?
Doing so may just be our last great shot at sustainable freedom.
It’s bumper sticker philosophy that no one is free so long as anyone is unfree. But is that so? Should libertarians feel obligated to find some magical way to liberate all of humanity? Isn’t the very idea of that sort of obligation kind of ironic? Perhaps those who want to be free should simply to try to live as freely as possible themselves, say through offshore finance, multiple passports, contracting as opposed to conventional employment, and developing portable wealth and skills.
Thanks, Pete, it is good stuff you’ve written. I have long believed that seeking other people to lead me is a waste of time. As a sovereign individual, it is my job to govern myself. Therefore, I do not consent to be governed.
One of the groups that is working on bringing about a smaller government at all levels and on all issues is The Boston Tea Party. Their site is at http://www.bostontea.us if you are interested. So far we’ve formed state affiliates in a dozen states and organised committees to form more in another 15. We supported many candidates in 2008, but each one had to agree with our platform of a smaller government on all issues and at all levels. In October our national convention adopted the four points of the Campaign for Liberty as our program through 2010.
Another group that ought to be doing more to defend our rights is the American Civil Liberties Union. Recent news stories suggest that the leadership of that group has become authoritarian. They are demanding secrecy on all kinds of things, attempting to gag members of their board of directors, and also demanding centralisation, at least from Kansas City, of the chapters in at least one region. I find this behavior maddening to a considerable degree, as do other activists in the region.
Nat Hentoff wrote a book about the war against our freedoms and the coming backlash, back in 2003 or so. I’m just looking at it now. Hentoff was one of the writers who began to expose the authoritarian streak in the new clique running the ACLU. FWIW.
Nice writeup. I agree that limited government is generally preferred, but as we’ve seen given limited oversight the private sector is prone to corruption and cheating (think Madoff, ING, Citi, etc.). This isn’t to say that cheating and corruption does not occur in government; it certainly does. Where’s the middle ground? It’s clear that the current recession has hurt the free market/minds movement.
I love the Philosophy of Liberty animation…. I love it so much, that with the help of a dozen or so other members of the Free State Project, I am distributing a copy to every member of the New Hampshire legislature!
Details on that project are here
KUDOS is all I can say!
Pete, I do agree with you, however, what peaceful opportunity to reduce the size of government do we have but to support “repeal oriented” politicians? I for one would like to see a politician promise that he won’t pass a single new law while in office, but that he’ll vote at every opportunity to repeal laws.
Well done Pete! While I entertain disagreements with a few minor points in the message (objections to the war on terror) the thrust of it is on-point. Larger government is inherently corrosive of and inimical to individual liberty. What is needed is a full-scale attack on the primary assumption of the contemporary Western society that state intervention is inherently beneficial. I.e. the first order of business is scaling government back through demonstrating to the wider polity its abuses.
Patrick, you asked, “Can we create a functioning society free of government altogether? Doing so may just be our last great shot at sustainable freedom.”
Good question. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism) but basically the idea is not just to believe the State is bad (as it uses aggressive force) and sit by waiting for its demise but to actively engage in non-violent, voluntary activities that undermine it. This is known as counter-economics. Things such as drug trafficking, human smuggling (not sex slaves, but helping people cross arbitrary political boundaries so they can have better opportunities), etc. Further, that people would become so active in counter-economics, that they would see the benefits that stem from it, that the practice of voluntary interactions would prevent the rise of another State.
Just a thought. For more on this, check out the “Agora!” group on Bureaucrash Social started by Mike Gogulski. There’s some smart folks there that can school me on this topic: http://bureaucrashsocial.ning.com/group/agora
Pete, I enjoyed the blog post but I think the item therein which had the most impact is the video on the philosophy of liberty (the one with the stick figures). This is truly excellent!
Steve, you asked “Should libertarians feel obligated to find some magical way to liberate all of humanity?”
Good question. If you had replaced the world “feel” with “be” I would answer no. But, because each of us is different with our own faculties, subjective value, time preferences, etc., but it depends. Some libertarians would feel obligated to take care of others. Some libertarians would not.
The important thing to note in a more-libertarian world is the absence of force involved. Today the government uses force to take your money under the auspices of being able to make better decisions on how to take care of you and others. If government weren’t to exist I’m under no illusion that 100% of people would voluntarily give to charity, but enough would.
I give to some causes and organizations, and you may as well. And I know that if I were not taxed so heavily I’d have more discretionary income, so I would give even more. And so would others. And, since charities would be competing with each other for these scarce dollars they’d strive to more efficient (less money spent on administrative costs) and more effective (fulfilling their goals) much more than a government program with no competition ever could.
It’s the whole idea behind civil society : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society
A couple awesome resources on this are David Beito’s “The Voluntary City” and “From Mutual Aid To Welfare State.” Also, though I haven’t read it, Crasher Kevin Dean STRONGLY recommends Mary Ruwart’s “Healing Our World.”
JJ, thanks for your comment. There’s a couple things to unpack.
First, I totally agree that the recession has hurt the free market/minds movement. Part of that is due to people (i.e. Greenspan) and organizations (i.e. Heritage) that portray themselves as advocates for free markets but their actions are anything but. (For more on Greenspan, check out this post: http://libertyismyhomie.blogspot.com/2008/11/greenspan-proof-that-government.html For more on Heritage, check out this thread: http://social.bureaucrash.com/forum/topics/heritage-foundation-has-a-good)
Second, the cheating/corruption in the private sector. Yes, it happens. As our Objectivist friends would note, individuals are self-interested. The folks associated with those companies you mentioned were some shady characters. I don’t think going to a truly free market society (from a mixed economy) would be a utopia. But I believe there would be less harms than under the current structure or under one with greater government intervention, simply because companies would have to provide a good or service to consumers that they willingly buy. They would have to be accountable, and could not internalize profits and externalize losses, as happened to certain sectors that government propped up. Also, there would be no protection, or extra rights created and granted to companies (as is done under limited liability).
We definately need to limit the scope of government, but this will not happen until people start taking responsibility for their own actions, inactions, successes, and most importantly failures.
This presents us with a dilemma, how do we encourage independence and individuality while the government bureaucracy is instilling dependence and collectivism where ever they can?
Any solutions?
Mike, I’m sure lots of others agree with your support of “repeal oriented” politicians. This is a question I’ve struggled with and still reflect upon. Especially as, like we saw last year with Ron Paul (minus his immigration stance), one candidate can be a good spokesperson and the political process can provide a forum to get the ideas out there.
Obviously, I’d rather have a Congress made of such folks than the current line-up but for me it again comes back to force. Is it just if 50% of people + you voted into office a more liberty-oriented person? Libertarians are opposed to the use of coercion. And that newly-elected office holder would use the force of government not only to obtain his/her salary but to place their views on others view programs. That’s why I advocate education/persuasion.
But, to each his/her own. And in general I think the more balls in the air (i.e. policy, civil disobedience, etc.) the better the chance of succeeding.
Josh, thanks for your response. To address your question, I don’t have a full-proof answer, but I do think it’s important to at least introduce people to these ideas. That’s half the battle. It’ll help to change the way folks look at the world. Not just bitch that the government takes their coin or tells them what substance they can put into their own body but really think about it in terms of self-ownership.
There’s an essay by Herbert Spencer called “The Right to Ignore the State” (http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm) that, at least for me, got me pointed in that direction. Once people internalize that they should be free to act so long as they aren’t harming others, they begin to see actions cloaked under the legitimacy of the State as nothing more than force.
That said, others (like Milton Friedman, for example) are swayed by arguments about efficiency. Fortunately, both the natural rights perspective and the consequentialist perspective reach the same conclusions.
A great synopsis of the limited government perspective. I share your sentiment. The perspective has always been based on logic and the fundamental principles of liberty, self ownership etc… However, I think the key to keep in mind is that the opposition (if you will) doesn’t always approach the world in the same way. The notion of compassion for the less fortunate is always brought up, placing the limited government perspective on the defensive to explain logically why limited government will provide for those individuals. It really is a difficult task to accomplish on a political level. The other issues that I noticed are that the libertarian party, right now, is mainly made of up of, white affluent males with higher education. It is this segment of the population that is becoming the minority and more marginalized as those individuals who espouse multiculturalism are rejecting “white male” objectivism and who are now questioning “our” authority. Now I think this approach is mainly reactionary but sadly part of the process of minority empowerment similar to adolescents rebelling against their parents’ only years later adopting their values and wisdom. Perhaps the best is yet to come??? Pete, I think you should continue to expand on what you are written. Take one topic, say welfare reform or the drug war, and analyze it from the limited government..I think these broad appeals are easily dismissed by others that aren’t already firmly leaning libertarian, even if as the CATO institute likes to purport, that a majority of American are already libertarians in thought but they just don’t know it, I think more needs to be done to inform them. Anyone that is just my quick response!!!! When is the next happy hour??
Steve, I hear you. There’s a happy hr tmrw (Thur) at Four Corners in Courthouse. Hosted by Young Americans for Liberty and Students For Liberty. It should be good. I’m sure there’ll be more than a few folks that’ll be happy to weigh in on this convo.
I am with you Pete. Keep up the energy in spreading the message across. I try to do the same whenever the opportunity arises.
Thanks for responding to my comments. Keep up the good work.
Excellent post, well done. Loved the animation, too!
“The solution is to lessen the scope of government in our lives, so that we can live more free.” .. “We can make a difference, one person at a time. Join us!”
It is very difficult to make a difference in how government works one person at a time, or even 1 thousand people at a time. This is intimately tied with the fact that democracy works poorly - it has its own systemic logic and doesn’t have marginal incentives to produce good laws.
Spreading the message is a good default strategy when there are no better solutions, but people have been doing it for decades and the state hasn’t gone anywhere. Perhaps it’s time for strategies with better incentive structures, where smaller groups can really make a difference? I am partial to the FSP and my own Seasteading project.
Hi, Pete. Sure, I’m aware that the role of civil society in helping those who can’t help themselves has been usurped by the state. I don’t usually donate money to causes, but I do donate time, such as to WikiEducator: http://wikieducator.org/steve
The question, though, is whether it’s worthwhile for the focus of that sort of activity to be specifically on promoting libertarian ideas to get more people to agree with us. I’m with Patri in that I don’t think this solution has been particularly effective, and that alternatives, whether those he suggests or just looking for ways of being more free individually, offer a better return on that sort of investment of time and effort.
Hi pete
This is indeed a noteworthy concept and effort from this group and i am sure that i coming days you will gain more supporters
/// What concerns me about the Liberty v/s Govt concept is the role of unscrupulous entities in this confrontation…
for example - As government around the world is tightening its grip on civil liberty to ‘fight’ terrorism it often blames libertarian movement/groups to be working for terrorist agencies by trying to block govt excess. Often this results in alienation of libertarian groups from the mainstream/masses
How do you propose to deal with such issues ?
Patri, thanks for your response. I too agree that the FSP and Seasteading have great potential (I’m a signer of the Statement of Intent for the former) but think that very real change can happen on an individual level. If a person “opts out” to whatever degree they feel comfortable (i.e. a single working mother that views the State as illegitimate may not feel the risks of not paying taxes are worth it while someone else may, etc.) they are to some extent casting off the shackles of the State. The growing Agorism movement gives me hope that this is the case.
Amit, a very-real concern, no doubt. Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, those with political power no longer have the power to control and censor information to the extent they once had. We are able to bypass these traditional gatekeepers entirely. For the issue you touched on specifically, information about how drug prohibition creates a black market for groups labels as “terrorists” to obtain funds. Not to mention aggressive foreign policy that has created significant blowback. And if governments set their sites on libertarian groups it’ll be helpful to create alliances with others under the banner of protecting privacy and against a police/surveillance state.
Just to help you in the wonderful work you are doing: here is a way to get $350 in free advertising money at facebook
http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=1149413