This is part of my Christian libertarianism series. In previous articles I explained how:
- My libertarian beliefs are compatible with a biblical worldview
- Why I believe in minarchy (small government) rather than anarchy (no government)
- Why I appreciate Ayn Rand but cannot be an Objectivist
Today I will discuss why I have not joined the Libertarian Party of America.
If I’m a libertarian, it wouldn’t make sense for me to be a Democrat or a Republican. Fortunately there’s a third party tailored just for me: the Libertarian Party (LP). The LP claims the status of America’s biggest third party. As a libertarian, it would make sense for me to join the LP, but I haven’t.
The reasons aren’t related to the party’s statement of belief. To join the LP, all you have to do is pay a membership fee and agree to this statement:
I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
That seems simple enough, and I can agree to the statement. It purposely leaves a lot of room for interpretation, because many libertarians disagree on a great many issues. That’s OK, though. A political party can have room for different ideas.
No, the reason I’m not a libertarian is because I believe the party undermines and sabotages any practical goals in favor of retaining some insane level of ideological purity. For one example, let’s look back to the 2004 Presidential election. The LP nominated Michael Badnarik and got him on the ballot in 48 states plus DC. Unfortunately, Michael Badnarik is a lunatic.
Let’s look at some examples of what Michael Badnarik believes and preaches:
- He claims he doesn’t pay income tax, and that American citizens are not required to pay.
Really, that’s all we need to know. He’s not credible. He’s a farce. OK, here’s another one:
- He drives without a license
Now I’m sure these are all great ideologically pure libertarian principles to live by, but by nominating a fringe guy like Badnarik, the LP is sending a message. The message is this: we don’t care about winning elections or making a real impact. We’re too caught up in maintaining the purity of our ideology, and we’re not willing to engage the world as it is, to make pragmatic, practical changes.
That was 2004. This year, the LP has nominated Bob Barr, an ex-Republican who seems much more pragmatic. Whether or not this indicates a real shift in the LP remains to be seen. I’m skeptical. The folks who rail about the purity of libertarian principles don’t like Barr and don’t trust him, and I can’t imagine they will let his candidacy have any lasting impact on the party.
I’m keeping my eye on the LP, but for now it’s not a credible organization.
I believe that as a Christian I should pay taxes. That’s biblical. But I do have some questions as to whether one is obliged to pay the income tax legally. No one can definitively point to a law that shows the payment of said tax is actually on the books. Some will say that the 16th Amendment proves Americans must pay taxes on their labor, but I don’t think it does. The IRS has done some serious back-peddling when confronted with this question. I think at one time they agreed to debate the issue publicly, and then backed out.
The only reason to join any party is to participate in party functions. You can be a libertarian and be registered as an independent. Or you can be a libertarian and registered to vote as a libertarian and not join the LP. Or you can do the above and join the LP. If you want a more pragmatic LP then join and participate. Otherwise your opinion on party issues will have no impact.
Steve wrote:
Steve, that’s great advice. I’ll respond to it in another article, but the short version is this: I believe I can accomplish more for libertarian goals by working through the Republican party than through the LP. Not that I’m very active, mind you. I’d rather see libertarians participate in Republican party activities and make a real (albeit small) impact.
Considering the drift of the Republican party for the last 8 years and whom the republican party has selected as its presidential candidate perhaps you should spend less time criticizing the LP and more time sweeping up your own stables.
I get the impression from your article and response that you are trying to persuade libertarian leaning republicans from deserting a party that has become dominated by the religious (non-libertarian) right and big government interventionist neo-conservatives.
As a Libertarian who feels that the Republican party has never honestly represented the idea of small government since Goldwater’s disastrous run for office in 64, I can’t fathom why you believe a small libertarian leaning group can change the direction of that party now or any time in the near future.
“I get the impression from your article and response that you are trying to persuade libertarian leaning republicans from deserting a party that has become dominated by the religious (non-libertarian) right and big government interventionist neo-conservatives.”
I didn’t get that impression at all. I just figured that was the way he personally felt about it.
I think that the Republican Party is finished. In the last 8 years, they have grown government more, invaded more civil liberties, wasted more money, told more lies, and instituted more Socialism than I thought even the Democrats could.
Personally, I’d like to see it implode or split. They have become the biggest stumbling block in the path to shrinking government, because they preach free markets and small government, and practice fascism, to the point that people think that the phrase “free markets and small government” means fascism, when it means (to non-republicans) something totally different.
Just my 2 cents.
No, I’m not trying to convince anybody to be a Republican or to stick with the Republican party. And no, I’m not a Republican myself. I’m not a member of a political party. If I were to get involved, I’d get involved someplace where I could actually influence something. I think the way to do that is in the Republican or Democratic primaries. For some reasons I’ll outline in a later article, I gravitate more toward the Republican side of things.
No, paying taxes is NOT Biblical.
Jesus was teaching non-resistance. He was teaching that there is another focus more important than focusing on resisting government. In the Biblical CONTEXT, the result of resisting government would have seriously diverted attention from his mission.
But Jesus does not condone taxation. He says taxes and death were both made up by man and can both be eliminated.
I was briefly involved with the LP in 1998 because Ron Paul was their nominee. I departed shortly after the 1998 election. The LP has been more of a sanctuary there to comfort the faithful rather than a political party that exists to win elections and affect public policy. I’m a busy person and I don’t have time to waste with people who aren’t serious about accomplishing their goals.
The nomination of Bob Barr demonstrates that things may be changing within the LP. I’m supporting Barr and I have given money to his campaign. However, I still have not rejoined the LP and I won’t until I see what happens during this election. If Barr does well and attracts a lot of pragmatic people to the party, they may overwhelm the existing tiny base of the party and change it for the better. If that happens, I will join them.
I have to call some of this…
“I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.”
If this is something LPers are saying, that’s exactly why the Libertarian Party is a contradiction in terms. As is minarchism.
“That seems simple enough, and I can agree to the statement.”
And, alas, that’s the irony. Everybody who doesn’t have a severe chemical instability or social death-wish claims to agree with that statement. Curious, then, that most of the population doesn’t follow it in any meaningful sense - including LPers.
“It purposely leaves a lot of room for interpretation, because many libertarians disagree on a great many issues.”
You mean the statement, “I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals” leaves room for “interpretation?” How so?! Wherein lies the confusion? “I will not initiate force.” That’s an extraordinarily clear, plain-English statement.
“A political party can have room for different ideas.”
Word? Typically, they don’t. That’s their point.
“No, the reason I’m not a libertarian [party member?] is because I believe the party undermines and sabotages any practical goals in favor of retaining some insane level of ideological purity.”
Ideologically pure? More like the LP is full of ideological charlatans. The problem with the party is not that it’s “impractical,” (impractical for what - pointing the gun at the other people?) but that it forsakes the very statements it claims to defend. The statement about not initiating force yet participating in politics is the most damning.
As to the gentleman’s comment about how Christ allegedly advocated paying taxes (I assume the referenced passage is the extraordinarily vague “render unto Caeser” quote), that’s exactly why so many people severely despise attempts to buttress political opinion with the Bible (or the Koran, or the Tipitaka, or the Nag Hammadi Library, or whatever). Morality doesn’t care what’s in your bloody holy book.
If anything, Jesus Christ himself (not his disciples, not the Pope, not the reformers) was a political “quietist” who took a silent, vague position in favor of political inactivity. (Essentially, one of stating that if you want to serve the kingdom of heaven, don’t serve and indeed ignore the kingdoms of earth.)
Tom wrote:
The interpretation lies in the precise meaning of “initiate”. Libertarians aren’t opposed to using force to defend their rights, they just don’t believe they should initiate the use of force. So we have to know exactly what it means to initiate.
And that leads to a more subtle question: which rights, and who has those rights? For example, does an unborn child count as a person, with the full rights and privileges of a human being? Is an abortion an initiation of force for which a libetarian can legitimately respond with force to prevent? Or is the abortion just a medical procedure, and any force used to prevent it would count as an unjust initiation of force?
These are legitimate questions that the LP leaves open for interpretation.
jwpegler wrote:
Well said. That’s the sentiment I tried to express in my article.
“But Jesus does not condone taxation. He says taxes and death were both made up by man and can both be eliminated.”
Christian Prophet, what scripture are you referencing here? Honestly, I think you just made that up. Prophets these days…
Tom, I think I agree with you. I think the Bible portrays a somewhat consistent (albeit not systematic) philosophy of a-politicism.
Hmm. I’d disagree that the Bible gives that impression (cf. parts of the OT that are all about killing people), but from what I can recollect, Christ never once urged political activity.
Chris,
The most common biblical quote involving taxation is “Render onto Cesar what is Cesar’s”. At the time, the Jewish lawyers where trying to come up with a reason for the Romans to kill Jesus and asked him about the tax imposed on the inhabitants of Israel; had he explicitly denounced it, that would have been seen as justification to kill him.
Had Jesus explictly approved of this taxation, which is unlikley, it would have been seen as unreasonable and he would have been discredited. Keep in mind the Romans weren’t using the tax money to build roads or schools in Israel; rather the money was tribute to keep Romans from killing everyone in the area.
Instead Jesus, basically found a clever way to duck the question. One who didn’t think Cesar was entitled to the money would interpret the quote to mean “Cesar is owed nothing so we should give him nothing”. However, the Roman officials would have to interpret it to mean Cesar should be given the amount of the tax, so the Jewish lawyers couldn’t use it as a way to have him killed.
lpcowboy,
I don’t disagree with your comment. I disagree (as does the Bible) with the statement that Jesus said (or says) “death were both made up by man and can both be eliminated.” We can paraphrase a bit, but I think there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed. Any prophet should know that. Certainly taxation is a human concept, but not death. Death resulted from sin but sin did not originate with man; it originated with Lucifer who rebelled against God.
“He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.”
1 John 3:8