LIBERTARIAN LIES

The degree of political dyslexia in the United States is so severe that many Libertarians actually have adopted the term "anarchist" to refer to what they're espousing. In the interests of clarity and truthfulness, I'm going to analyze the Libertarian Party line and see if the "party of principle" actually lives up to its allegedly libertarian ideals.

I highlighted sections that stand out to me as revealing the hidden true nature of the LPUSA. If you don't know what I mean by BUZZWORDS, by all means check it out.

LPUSA POSITION

Already, you see some qualifiers--they object to the OMNIPOTENT state, rather than objecting to the state itself. This would make them minarchists, not anarchists! American "Libertarians" want a smaller state; they do not want to get rid of the state!

The above is the main theme of their party. As a platitude, is sounds very nice. But the buzzwords continue buzzing--"sole dominion", "forcibly interfere", "whatever manner they choose".

One word to sum this up: TAXATION (aka, "fruits of labor"). This gets downplayed by the emphasis on their opposition to lifestyle legislation--this is a good thing, but is invidious in that it creates the illusion that Libertarians are libertines, when economically, they are reactionaries. Again, I'll touch on this soon enough.

Here is the classic Americanism in action: life, liberty, and property (aka, "the pursuit of happiness"). Property is the foundation upon which the Libertarian Party rests; liberty and life are secondary considerations. Libertarians see property as the means to perpetuate life and to maximize liberty.

This is where the schizophrenic nature of the LPUSA comes into play. Against censorship? Great. Pro free speech? Better still. The right to property? Hold the presses! There can be NO property rights maintained without the state...so, we see the LPUSA talking a good game about opposing the intervention of the state in their affairs, yet we suddenly see it recognizing a "right" to property; moreover, they speak of the prohibition of robbery and trespass among other misdeeds. These are property offenses, and would require a powerful state to provide a police force to ensure that said property remains inviolate!

So the LPUSA would have you believe that they're against the state, when at the same time they express their support for a right of property! Does that mean each and every one of you has a right to a plot of land? No. Of course not. It does mean that if you can purchase some land, that you'll be able to "join the club". Once you purchase this land, your "right" of property is established, and is defensible only by the power of the state.

This is why the LPUSA is such a profoundly MIDDLE CLASS party--because these people are property owners, and don't like the government taxing them for their ownership of land. But at the same time, they cannot keep their property safe without police and government. This paradox is characteristic of bourgeois ideologies.

To the Libertarian, property is the means to liberty and life. In this respect, they resemble classic economic liberals in their outlook. Those without property should aspire to it. Property is the means to salvation. This is THE party line of the Libertarians.

Voluntary...relations among individuals means employees working for a property owner. The Libertarian Party line is "well, nobody FORCED you to work there. You CHOSE to." But as I've said elsewhere, there is no "choice" between work for another or die--the sane choose life; the insane call that free agreeement!

They say people should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. But what is an employee of a capitalistic firm if not someone sacrificing their lives (represented by time) for the benefit (profit) of others (the owner[s])?

Anarchists agree that people should not be forced to work for anyone else's profit--but this is not what the Libertarians are saying, for if it was, it would negate their very premise--for they pretend that "work for another or die" IS a free choice offered in capitalist society!

The Libertarians are saying, instead, that those WITH PROPERTY should be protected from expropriation, regardless. They use benefit to confound the very real issues of want and need.

Then they go on about the free market as the sole safeguard of liberty. I wonder what individual rights they are speaking of that the free market can possibly protect? Property? Liberty? Life?

What they are effectively saying is that people trade one master (government) for another (capitalism). This is essentially their argument, although, in fact, they aren't really abandoning the idea of the state--no capitalist CAN! They merely want the "omnipotent" state whittled down so it is more accountable to the demands of the nation's propertarians, rather than the nation's people as a whole. Society is evolving in this direction as you read this, so the LPUSA should be quite tickled at the current situation.

1996 Party Platform

This is more mumbo-jumbo against taxation and safeguarding of property. Funny how party platforms reveal the constituency the various parties are speaking to. This is also an extension of the bourgeois myth of autonomy--that society itself is nonexistent--that we are all just a horde of unconnected, conniving individuals welded together for the heck of it. Name one person you know who's sovereign over their own life. Society is the result of interaction, connectivity, reciprocity, and cooperation, not the absence of it.

Again, the chuckleheads talk again about these individual rights without enumerating them. Are these rights those of life, liberty, and property? They are engaging in ambiguity, a linguistic fallacy, to further obfuscate their meaning. Would a Libertarian recognize a right to food as a necessary precondition to the "right to life" they endorse?

Of course they wouldn't. All they say is that you have a freedom from the initiation of force against you, without elaborating (with reason). For the right to life, taken in the abstract, is meaningless, because human beings are not self-sustaining--we need food, water, shelter, etc. to survive. Thus, the abstract right to life is grounded in a very concrete reality. But the Libertarians don't touch that one, and with good reason--property rights supersede rights to life (and thus liberty) in Propertarian society.

If you're starving and you pluck an apple from a Propertarian's tree, you will go to jail as a robber and a trespasser (assuming you aren't shot at the scene, naturally). It doesn't matter if you're starving--all that mattered is you violated the Propertarian's property rights--thus you see the natural dissolution of the right to life when crossed with the right of property...you would not be able to defend your "theft" on the basis of a "right to life". I guarantee it.

The repetition of prosperity within this section is more bourgeois, middle class capitalist apologia. Capitalist prosperity comes from the labor of others, which is, in itself, a violation of the exploited's liberty. The LPUSA's endorsement of capitalism as the economic system of choice is a guarantee that fraud and force will remain alive and well in Propertarian society, producing not a free world, but a world of masters (owners) and slaves (workers). They call this "freedom", but they're wrong.

Let's take the apple thief example again...I'm peacefully plucking the apple from yon Propertarian's tree (they would classify this as initiation of force--theft and trespass), even though I'm honestly starving. But I'm shot as a trespassing thief. Thus you see the manorial, essentially feudal relations the Propertarians would have you governed by. I didn't initiate physical violence against the propertarian, but they would still toe the line I established--why? Because the Propertarians weld life and profit together. I've just "harmed" the landowner by taking an apple from "his" tree.

Free to follow my dreams in my own way, free from any government interference or authoritarian power? Okay, I want to live. But I can't do that, because I don't own my own land. The land's all owned by various wealthy Libertarians in the region. Thus, I am surrounded by authoritarian powers who've already demonstrated a willingness to persecute trespassers--so, how can I possibly be "free" to do anything except starve and die??!

Libertarian "theory" only withstands scrutiny when said scrutiny is withheld.

I'll create a site to comment on these various policy stances to further illustrate the hypocrisy of the Libertarian Party. I think you'll find the enumeration of their policies to be revealing. Some of their stances are good, but the real core of their program is very, very bad.

In the world of the Propertarian, only those with property are free. By taking property as the means to liberty, it establishes a continuum of liberty, rather than an absolute. This dangerous precedent means that liberty will only be there for those who can afford it--thus becoming a luxury, and not a right, as the LPUSA would have you believe.

MORE ON LIBERTARIAN STANCES

INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER

"Initiation of force" is the cardinal sin in propertarian society, carefully defined to encompass anything propertarians oppose. For example, if Libertarians hold to this fundamental principle, then why do they not return the land their ancestors stole from the American Indians? There are fewer purer examples of initiation of force than the European conquest of the New World! Let's explore further...

THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY

Here we get to the foundation of Libertarian (or, more accurately, Propertarian) ideology, as I mentioned. Property. Note how they establish (sans proof) that there is no conflict between property and human rights--thus, if a wealthy landowner's property rights contribute to the abject poverty of the people in a given region, there is no conflict, in the eyes of Libertarians!

Here we see another logical fallacy -- begging the question, in the statement that "property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property; they circle back to their conclusion:

1. Q: What are property rights?
2. A: Property rights are the rights of humans with respect to property.
It doesn't explain what they are! This is fallacious.

Notice how they refrain from enumerating "all other human rights"--what are these other human rights? Anarchists can think of quite a few human rights, all of which clash head-on with property "rights".

As I'd said, Propertarians view property as the keystone of liberty--in this, they are correct--WITHIN propertarian society, only those WITH property are free. They pussyfoot around the issue by saying that we are all propertarians, based on self-ownership--however, they fail to note that self-ownership does NOT equal self-sustenance...that is, in their society, the dispossessed are "free" only to starve...self-ownership does not put bread on the table (nor provide the table, for that matter!)

Here we have yet another logical fallacy -- the absolute statement. "All rights are inextricably intertwined with property." To the propertarian, no proof of this is required; it is taken as a given.

"Involuntary servitude", as mentioned above, is another misconception of the Propertarians--they take it as a given that anyone working at a place of employment is there because they want to--coal miners, sweatshop workers, cashiers, garbage collectors--whatever...no one forced them to work where they do (so the mythology goes). This is, however, fallacious--those without property MUST, in fact, work for another--be it employer or client (misnamed, "self-employment"). There is no choice in the matter, for to choose death is not a rational option. It is in this fashion that people enter into jobs they wouldn't ordinarily undertake--it is this situation that produces the very real involuntary servitude of capitalism...Propertarians pretend that the ability to choose your own master equals freedom, but this is a lie!

Here we come across the nail in the coffin of the myth of the Libertarian Party--The above is the "every man a king in his castle" clause of their platform. The property owner is the ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY regarding his property. It is this idea that puts the lie to any pretensions toward anarchism that Libertarians have. They do not reject authority at all--rather, they object to authority over THEM! Such is the way of all parties, alas--they expect everyone else to play by the rules they created for their own profit.

The use of "valid rights" here is very important, since Propertarians have a very skewed sense of what rights are "valid".

For example, if you're starving, and in dire need of food, the Propertarians would not recognize this as a valid right (that is, the right to eat). I know it's crazy, but this is their stance! They'd say it's not THEIR fault you're hungry (or homeless, or whatever), and probably have the police drub you into jail--but really, it IS their fault--that is, it's the fault of propertarians everywhere that poverty even exists--why? Property breeds poverty--once some take more than their fair share, it guarantees that many will not get anything. Every propertarian society has poverty on a wide scale--they are, and always have been, intimately linked. I cannot think of a more valid right than the right to be able to eat!

A "valid" right, to the Propertarian is any right the Propertarians DEEM valid. Such absolute authority is the source of much tyranny throughout history. As Thomas Hobbes so rightly observed, wealth IS power--and in propertarian society, only the propertied will have the power! Precious little liberty in such a world.

You see here that the inclusion of "life and liberty" to the triad (life, liberty, and property) is ultimately obviated by the "right" to property--for, if humans have a right to life, it is criminal for them to be deprived of it--thus, the propertarian withholding food from his fellow human is committing a crime. Moreover, the dispossessed within a propertarian society are definitely without liberty (that is, the right to do as they please).

So, you see how property negates the 2/3 of the rights the Propertarians pretend to value! Political parties do things like this to make their draconian systems more palatable--they are swindlers, like all the rest, using honeyed words to con the majority of people into accepting their own exploitation!

This is by their own admission--property is the way to the other "inalienable" rights. Which means that those without property have no liberty! Makes me wonder why the Propertarians even bothered to say we have rights to life and liberty, when all they really care about is property!

Just like the Democrats and Republicans adopted favorable-sounding names that don't remotely resemble their agendas, so have the Libertarians adopted a name that doesn't even come close to what they stand for. Again, as I've said, these people are Propertarians, although given how slipshod they are with the facts, Glibertarians would not be too far off the mark, either!

This gem is priceless, as it reveals the hypocrisy inherent in all parties--they SAY one thing, and do another. If the Propertarians actually believed in their own words, they would rush to return the property stolen from the American Indians. But funny, you don't see them doing that!

Let's see how the Propertarians resolve the issue of the grand theft (and genocide) committed on the Native Americans...

AMERICAN INDIAN RIGHTS

We favor the following remedies, respectively: (1) individual Indians should be free to select their citizenship, if any, and tribes should be allowed to choose their level of autonomy, up to absolute sovereignty; (2) Indians should be allowed to have their just property rights restored, including rights of easement, access, hunting and fishing; (3) the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be abolished and tribal members allowed to decided the extent and nature of their government, if any; and (4) negotiations should be undertaken to exchanged various otherwise unclaimed and unowned federal properties for any and all remaining governmental obligations to the tribes.

Here we see the BIG LIE of Libertarianism in practice--after saying that they: 1) reject initiation of force; 2) support restition of property to the dispossessed, we see them backpedalling on the very real issue that Libertarians are holding stolen land!!! Thus, they invent four "remedies" to skirt around the clear contradiction of their propertarian creed, the real reason for the "unconscionable plight" of the Native American people--as if this simply happened to them!

This is precisely what I mean when I say that Libertarians seek maximum liberty for themselves (through property) and fail to extend the privilege to the rest of us!

We have a clear case of wrongful expropriation (let's call it THEFT and ROBBERY, since that's what it is), one that ideologically consistent Libertarians should be able to clear up--1) Europeans and Americans wrongfully initiated force against the Native Americans; 2) said initiation of force expropriated the Native Americans; 3) their lost property should be restituted without hesitation.

But you don't see that. You see a waffle word..."just property rights" added to protect them from their own hypocrisy--thus, in classic Glibertarian fashion, it is UNJUST (!) for the Native Americans to push for the restoration of their property!!

See the contradiction? Playing by the stated rules of the Propertarian game, the LPUSA's membership is acting in violation of their own platform! Would that this were the only case of such flagrant hypocrisy on the part of these swindlers!

This contradiction occurs throughout propertarian ideology, in that the apologists desire maximum latitude for themselves, while depriving it for everyone else. This is the way of all vanguardists--those who would, despite contrary declarations, oppress you for their own gain. Until the LPUSA's membership abandons ALL Indian lands, how can anyone take them seriously as defenders of property rights, and hence, liberty?? Like all partisans, they are liars.

You see the very real reliance in force that lies behind property "rights" in this instance--the LPUSA's membership holds wrongful property because the state protects them from the consequences of their crimes--this is the way of "free traders" everywhere.