| I’m sad to announce that the Libertarian Party is utterly worthless. Well, the fact that it was a political party vying for the throne made it not only worthless, but counter-productive, from the beginning. If you’re waiting around for “government” to pass a “law” giving you permission to be free, then: a) you’ll be waiting a long time, and b) you’re not even free inside your own head yet. As long as you are begging any master to endorse your freedom, you will remain a slave.

But aside from that, my complaint today is that the Libertarian party has no real principles anymore. None. By its label, there is only one principle it should ever have had: the principle of non-aggression. That’s what “libertarianism” is all about. It’s a very simple, basic principle, and it is philosophically and morally sound. And it has been abandoned by the Libertarian Party. (No, this didn’t just happen now, but it’s getting more obvious.)

I just read an article, here on Freedom’s Phoenix, where the Libertarian Party was, ironically, trying to warn people about how the Republican Party is not a friend of freedom. While that is quite true, the quotes from the Libertarian Party showed that it is no friend of freedom either. And a very simple phrase from the article is all the proof you need. It said that the Libertarian Party wants to “cut taxes,” and push for “less government” and “more freedom.” It’s not that they oppose aggression in principle; it’s that they want less aggression. How much less? Well, apparently it depends how much is “needed,” and how much is “possible”–whatever that means.

There is a huge, fundamental difference between advocating less evil, and advocating no evil. Advocating a significant reduction in murder, rape, and armed robbery, is not the same as being opposed to such things entirely. Since “taxation” is a euphemism for extortion and robbery, done via violence and the threat of violence, the libertarian principle does not allow for any taxation at all. The anti-aggression principle is incompatible with any “taxation.” Period.

Yet the Libertarian Party is out there talking about “lower taxes.” While we’re at it, how about if we have a platform of being for a 40% reduction in murder, a 50% reduction in rape, and–hey, let’s get radical–a 70% reduction in car-jacking? After all, it would be extreme to advocate that we should have none of those things. So we’d better try to phase in that reduction in murder, and water down our opposition to rape, and be more moderate in our opposition to car-jacking. Because, after all, we need to win elections, and you can’t do that if you have actual principles!

The Libertarian Party has ceased to be libertarian. They don’t dare to bluntly describe what libertarianism entails, because that would scare too many potential voters, who have been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of state-worship. Instead of speaking about succinct, specific principles, Libertarian candidates and spokes-folk muddle around in more publicly acceptable generalities. They want less of this and more of that. Less than what? More than what? Where is the ultimate goal? What is the underlying principle?

Having basically abandoned the principle of non-aggression, by talking about “cutting” (not eliminating) “taxes,” even if the Party magically won every seat in the cult called “government,” it would accomplish exactly nothing. The Party would transform into what the Republican Party was in 1994: lots of pretend pro-freedom principles, followed by lots of real-world control-freak oppression.

“Now, now, we have to be practical, and do things slowly, and win people over, and yada, yada, yada.” Bullpoop. When you drop the principle, in order to win public approval, your cause becomes worthless. If you don’t even dare to bluntly say what you believe, and what your ultimate goal is, why should anyone expect you to act on what you (supposedly) believe? When you go on a road trip, is your goal to get closer to your destination, or to actually get there?

“So, Bob, where are you going on vacation?”

“Well, Chuck, I’m planning on traveling in the general direction of the Bahamas. I don’t intend to actually get there, mind you, and I’ll be moving really slowly, so as not to offend anyone. But I definitely want to move some in the general direction of the Bahamas.”

The Libertarian Party doesn’t like to talk about its ultimate end goal: a purely voluntary society. Why not? Because that’s not its end goal anymore. Its end goal is to be in power, to be the new master–a more wise, benevolent master, but a master nonetheless. “Well, once we get into power, then we’ll slowly do away with state aggression.” Bull poop. They would do nothing of the sort. They’ve stopped even giving lip service to that goal, and are now pathetically wimpering about “lower taxes,” and a “reduced” this and a “reformed” that.

In short, the Libertarian Party does not believe that you own yourself. They believe, just as strongly as every other political party does, that you are the property of the state. They claim to want the state to allow you to keep more of what you earn, and to grant you its holy permission (via its “laws”) to have more say over your day-to-day life. Big deal. There is a difference between being nice to your slaves, and not having slaves. The Libertarian Party is now the Nice Slavemaster Party. And for some of us, trading in our iron shackles for softer, lighter plastic shackles, in pretty colors, is just not good enough.

Want to see an actual principle? Here’s one:

You own yourself. No one has the right to take what you earn without your consent, even if they call their demands “law” and refer to the robbery as “taxation.” Extortion and robbery, even when “legal,” even when they are alleged to be “necessary,” are illegitimate, and it is perfectly moral to avoid or resist being robbed by any means necessary. You don’t need any law or other authoritarian decree to tell you that you own yourself, or to allow you to keep what you earn, or to otherwise be in charge of your own life.

When the Libertarian Party dares to say something like that, they’ll have my respect again. As long as they keep watering down the truth to try to win people over, they will be just another bunch of opportunistic, aspiring politicians, who will accomplish nothing more than devouring the efforts and resources of people who long for freedom, without ever getting them one inch closer to it. | In my last message, I pointed out that the Libertarian Party has watered down its message, basically dumping the principle it was founded on, in order to get votes. Well, while I’m at it, I might as well offend some more people. The Constitution Party is also worthless. Why? Several reasons:

1) Contrary to the divine holiness some people image the Constitution to have, it really is just a piece of paper (or parchment). While some of what the Founders wrote–the Declaration more so than the Constitution–expressed some pretty darn important and profound concepts, they still ended up creating a ruling class. It was supposed to be a tiny, “limited” ruling class, but they still pretended to bestow upon politicians certain powers that you don’t have, I don’t have, and none of the writers or signers of the Constitution had. Nice trick.

Sorry, but the term “Constitutional principles” is an oxymoron. The Declaration, for example, stated that all men are created equal, in terms of rights, but the Constitution (in true Animal Farm fashion) then claimed to give some of those “equal” people the right to forcibly rob all the other “equal” people. Yes, the power of “taxation” was supposed to be significantly limited in several ways, but it was still the power to steal. How does that match the notion of everyone being “created equal,” and the only purpose of “government” being to protect rights? It doesn’t. It is a direct, blatant, glaring contradiction. And working hard to get us back to a glaring contradiction, as the Constitution Party does, is not a good idea.

2) The Constitution cannot consist of unwaivering principles, because it was designed to be amended. If the control freaks go through the official, formal procedure of “amending” out all those pesky limitations, then what? Then totalitarianism will become “Constitutional,” and what would the Constitution Party say then? The truth is, instead of being some perfect expression of truth incarnate, the Constitution started as a huge, self-contradictory, illegitimate compromise, between some people who actually wanted individual freedom, and others who wanted to rule.

(It’s worth noting that the predictions of the anti-Federalists, who didn’t like the Constitution, turned out to be about a zillion times more accurate than the promises of the Federalists, who swore that the beast they were creating would remain small and meek.)

3) People have been so thoroughly trained to believe that freedom must be “legalized” before it is good, that they remain determined to bash their heads against the wall of the “political process” to achieve it. This is true of the Constitution Party and many others. If you believe in inalienable rights, why are you asking the politicians for “legislative” permission to do things? For example, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) describes things that “government” was not supposed to do at all–yet they do them on a regular basis. If your answer is to try to elect people who will change that, you’re implicitly conceding that they weren’t inalienable rights to begin with. By definition, if you need a “law” to allow something, it’s not a “right.” So, aside from the contradictions in the Constitution itself, if you actually believed in the “inalienability” of rights described therein, you’d be doing whatever you could–including things the politicians have deemed “illegal”–to defend those rights. Begging the master to let you speak your mind, or to let you be armed, or to spare you from random searches and interrogations, and so on, carries with it the implied message that you need the master’s permission to do those things. As a result, trying to regain “rights” via the political process is an inherent contradiction.

4) The American people, having been thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of statism and the worship of collectivism, don’t want what the Constitution describes. (Neither do I, but for very different reasons.) By playing the “democracy” game, the Constitution Party is basically conceding that what the majority wants is what matters. Yes, they would like the majority to agree with them, but since it doesn’t, why play a game (i.e., voting) that merely reinforces the looney notion that the majority has the right to rule in any way it sees fit (or in any way it’s duped into supporting)?

5) The Constitution created the monster you see now. No, this is not what it described, but (just like the theory of communism) that’s what it actually resulted in in the real world. So, pretending for a moment that there is the slightest chance in hell that the American people would even support going back to the Constitution, why would anyone expect it to turn out differently next time?

(Incidentally, the ink was still wet on the Constitution when the principles described therein were trashed. If you haven’t before, do a little research on the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion, the Louisiana Purchase, and the Aliens and Sedition Acts, for starters. Each of the first three “Presidents” trashed the Constitution, and any principles it pretended to be founded upon. Pretty much every President since then has done the same, though some more dramatically than others.)


Again, I eagerly await the hate mail, since I just bashed what many treat as infallible, holy doctrine: the Constitution. But before you tell me how stupid/evil/insane I am, consider this:

There have always been opportunistic control freaks waiting to take any bit of truth, any righteous cause, any good idea, and turn it into power and control for themselves. The Founders stated a lot of profoundly important truths. For example, had they quit after the Declaration of Independence, I would have had very few complaints. But the fundamental principles stated by some were immediately hijacked by others for their own power.

Ironically, we have a fine analogy to study today. The Republican Party is now going to great lengths to hijack the ideas and enthusiasm of the “Tea Party” movement, to use as a source of power for itself. In other words, they are trying to use the advocacy of freedom as a tool to gain dominion over others. This is an exact rerun of what happened a couple hundred years ago, when a few pro-freedom radicals (e.g., Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) spoke the truth and got some attention, and some political conmen hijacked the results, and used it as a tool for power for themselves. The result was the Constitution. So before you bash me, make sure you’re not accidentally cheering for the usurpers, thieves, liars and control freaks, instead of the people (like me) who actually want you to be free.

(P.S. For those of you who think that at least a step toward freedom would be an improvement, I sympathize a bit. However, when has that ever actually happened? And why is there any reason to expect it to happen now, because of any “political” efforts?)

P.S. I incorrectly listed the Whiskey Rebellion AND
Shay’s Rebellion as taking place after the Constitution was
ratified. The Whiskey Rebellion was after, but Shay’s Rebellion was
shortly before, under the “Articles of Confederation.” It doesn’t
change the point, but I didn’t want my history botch-up to go
uncorrected. And thanks to the observant subscriber who
straightened me out. | Okay, now that I’ve bashed the Libertarian and Constitutional political parties as being worthless, how about the so-called “Tea Party”? Does it have any chance of achieving anything positive?

Well, the Tea Party as a whole doesn’t actually believe anything. Basically, it’s a conglomeration of lots of people disaffected with the “government” they see today. Well, so what? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to recognize that something is horribly wrong. The question is, what do the Tea Partiers intend to do about it? If they were in charge, what would they do?

The trouble is, very few of them have anything even vaguely resembling a coherent philosophy or belief system. When I hear people using terms like “reasonable regulatory controls,” “responsible government spending,” “lower taxes,” “accountability in government,” and so on, it tells me that their complaints are not based on actual principles, but are based only upon the current unpleasant side-effects of tyranny. In short, they don’t even know what they want; they only know that this isn’t it.

It’s a safe bet that if you don’t even know what you’re trying to achieve, you won’t achieve it. And I believe that most people who wear the label of “Tea Party” supporter fit that category. They see things to complain about, but they haven’t the slightest clue of the underlying cause of the problems. In truth, the underlying cause is still lodged firmly inside their very own heads. They firmly believe in the very delusions that led to the current disaster, and that would lead to it again if they were “in charge.”

About the most depressing thing to me when I read first-hand accounts of what happened in Nazi Germany has to do with the opposition to the Nazis. The major opposition to the Nazis were the people advocating communism. Talk about a hopeless endeavor. When the argument is about what flavor of totalitarian, violent authoritarian control should be in place, the outcome is certain to be unpleasant. The Germans arguing for communism didn’t have the slightest idea why national socialism (Nazi-ism) became what it did. As a result, they argued for something that, in principle, was no better–in fact, it was no different. If the entire spectrum of political ideas in a country is communism versus socialism, things are doomed to get extremely nasty.

And so it is (though to a less drastic degree) with the “Tea Party” folk. If what they are hoping for is some modifications and reforms to a system of violent control and economic plunder, all of their efforts will accomplish absolutely nothing. To be even more blunt, that part of the “Tea Party” movement concerned with voting and lobbying does not have an ice cube’s chance in hell of achieving anything worthwhile. And I suspect that’s what most “Tea Party” folk are focusing on: “working within the system” (i.e., playing by the rules made up by the tyrants) to achieve freedom.

As I’ve explained before (over and over again), to play the game of voting, to praise the cult of democracy, is to begin by conceding that you are someone else’s property. The control freaks must be thrilled to pieces every time they look out and see their victims trying to vote them out, or petition them to change their minds. As long as the slaves are groveling, and begging, “please, massuh,” the slavemaster knows he’s in charge.

The question is, how many Tea Party folk are ready to stop begging and whining, and instead break their chains and walk off the plantation? Very few, I suspect. To put it another way (which makes most loyal subjects uncomfortable), how many Tea Party folk are prepared to “break the law”–i.e., disobey the politicians–in their attempts to achieve freedom? Again, I suspect the number is pretty small.

The very name, “Tea Party,” is somewhat ironic. It’s a reference to a dramatic act of illegal resistance (the Boston Tea Party). (Incidentally, there were several things about it that were fairly stupid, too, since it harmed a private industry more than those in “government.”) But I would bet that most of those who now call themselves “Tea Party” members are not only too scared to actually disobey their masters (which is somewhat understandable), but don’t even dare to think about it inside their own heads. They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the notion that obedience to “authority” and “government” is a moral imperative, that they won’t even allow themselves to consider “breaking the law” to achieve freedom.

Let me be blunt. As long as you won’t break a “law” to be free, you won’t ever be free, because you’re not even free inside your own head yet. If you still feel a moral obligation to obey the commands of politicians (which they call “law”), then all you’re doing is begging the master to not whip you so hard. Even if he agrees (fat chance), you’ll still be a slave.

For the most part, the Tea Party movement is beyond utterly worthless: it is hugely counter-productive, because it will use up huge amounts of resources and energy of good people, without making them a bit more free. However, if those who are so upset actually dare to think about things, re-examine philosophical principles instead of just whining about details, it might end up doing something constructive, at least for some of those involved.

If, instead of thousands of people standing around outside the lairs of the overlords, whining for “change,” there were thousands of people simply disobeying their masters, that might accomplish something. If, instead of whining to the megalomaniacs to end various wars, people quietly stopped funding, or otherwise sabotaged war-mongering efforts, that might accomplish something. If, instead of begging for “lower taxes,” people simply stopped paying, that might accomplish something. And–to be terrifyingly blunt–if people stopped merely complaining about the fascist crap that the state mercenaries (“police”) get away with, and started resisting them instead, things might change. (If the consequence for a fascist thug who beat the hell out of an innocent, unarmed civilian was death, instead of a paid vacation, it might happen less often.)

As long as the final decision of how the people are treated rests with the masters, and their hired thugs, the people can whine, vote, beg, and complain all they want. It will achieve nothing. But if enough people start coming to the realization that they own themselves, and that they don’t need a “law” saying so, they don’t need “legislation” giving them permission to keep what they earn, or to make their own choices, and if they start acting like people who understand and love liberty, they might actually get some. But I’m afraid that describes only the smallest fraction of those in the “Tea Party” movement.

By Larken Rose