In the same Libertarian Forum newsletter that J.H. Huebert recently linked to we find these encouraging words from Murray Rothbard’s Keynote Address to the LP Convention:
I have long been convinced that the process of becoming a libertarian-whether it happens gradually or in a blinding flash of conversion-is a twofold rather than a single process. If we may use a now familiar rhetoric, we might say that the true libertarian is “born again”, that is, that the process of conversion to liberty takes place in two distinct-though sometimes rapidly succeeding-stages. The first conversion is what we might call the “baptism of reason”-the moment or moments when the person becomes convinced that liberty is the best, and the only just, social system for mankind. He or she realizes that liberty is the true, the good, and the beautiful. But I have become increasingly convinced that this realization is only the first step to becoming a full-fledged libertarian. To be truly “born again”, the libertarian must experience what we might call a second baptism, the “baptism of will”. That is, he must be driven by his rational insight to dedicate himself to the mighty goal of bringing about the victory of liberty, of libertarian principles, in the real world. He must set out to transform reality in accordance with his ideal vision. In short, the truly complete libertarian, the “born again” libertarian, if you will, is not
content with recognizing the truth of liberty as the best social system; he cannot and will not rest content until that system, that set of principles, has triumphed in the world of reality. Reason and will are thus fused in a mighty and unflinching determination to carry on the struggle until the victory of liberty over statism has been achieved. The American revolutionaries pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor” to their struggle for liberty and independence. They were not parlor libertarians; they were determined to settle for nothing less than victory, regardless of how long or how arduous the task. And one thing is certain they never could have won without that iron determination; for otherwise, they would have wilted very early: after Long Island, or Fort Washington, or Valley Forge. The American revolutionaries would settle for nothing less than victory; can we fail to follow their florious example?…[Tom] Paine concluded his great work [Common Sense] with these stirring words:
“O! Ye that love mankind! Ye that dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant, stand forth! Every spot of the old world is overrun with oppression. Freedom hath been hunted around the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her as a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.”
I would like to underscore the importance of the line, “Ye that dare oppose not only tyranny but the tyrant …” For here Paine was referring to that two-step, double “baptism” process of which I spoke earlier. That it is splendid, but not enough, to come to the point of opposing tyranny in the abstract, as a general principle; but that it is of equally vital importance to press on to the second stage, to the concrete activism of engaging in struggle against the actual tyrant of whatever time and place we happen to live in.
…We hereby put everyone on notice: We are libertarians of the will as well as the intellect, of activity as well as theory, of real world struggle as well as idealistic vision. We are a serious movement. Our goal is nothing less than the victory of liberty over the Leviathan State, and we shall not be deflected, we shall not be diverted, we shall not be suborned, from achieving that goal. The odds against us are no greater than the odds that faced our forefathers at Concord, at Saratoga, or at Valley Forge. Secure in the knowledge that we are in the right, inspired by the vision, determination and courage of our forbears, we dedicate ourselves to the noblest cause of all, the old American cause, of individual Liberty. With such dedication and with such a goal, how can we help but win?
{ 6 comments }
As Murray said, it is only that dedication to the principle of justice and liberty that will drive us to sacrifice when we have stand to lose so much and go up against barricades.
Great post.
I guess I’m not a real libertarian then. I don’t drink the Kool-Aid, so I find statements like “With such dedication and with such a goal, how can we help but win?” to be utterly laughable. I’ll be more than happy to apologize for my pessimism once that success actually occurs. Anyone want to guess a day by which that will happen?
TGGP,
I guess you are content to let the statists pick your pocket for every hour of labor you put forth and every resource you purchase, and will be thankful when you are able to live your life as you choose. You seem to fit the very definition of Rothbard’s “parlor libertarians.” You would probably have been among the one-third of the country that would not provide support to the British nor Washington’s Army during the Revolution. But, you might want to think about trying to help end this coercion and government monopoly. If you drank the Kool-Aid you would be nothing more than a card carrying socialist. The philosophy of free markets and free men does not offer sugar-coated water; only the truth.
I suggest you read Etienne de la Boetie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude.
Simon,
What rational reason is there for me to resist the state? It is not within my power to really change anything, so the smartest thing to do is just to try and get by. Even if you activist-libertarians were going to be successful, it wouldn’t be dependent on my contribution. I don’t think you are going to be successful anyway, but that’s beside the point. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
T.G.G.P.: What you said. (Don’t I know you from gnxp.com?–I’m banned over there–prolly by GC.)
Others:
It is simply beyond what almost any would think “sensible” to aim at the elimination of the state. Though we may object to one or another excrescences of any particular authority, no one, to my knowledge, has ever proposed a superior system; at least the present one contains mechanisms by means of which change(s) may be effected. If certain changes are made and prove efficacious, it is reasonable to suppose that those and more of the same will prove politically viable and will grow in acceptance. Otherwise, armed revolution seems what is required for the institution of–what? Militant libertarians rave on about “private contracting” for security and conflict-resolution services. When comes the revolution–those contractors will be the state, though in a primitive form we know as “warlords.”
Where’s the gain? Might as well immortalize Marx as the original libertarian: he saw the “withering of the state” as the final object to be achieved by the establishment of socialism.
You’re right to observe that, in our own revolution, only about a third were active supporters. But the object of that struggle was far more modest; originally, the mere extension of the unadulterated “rights of Englishmen” would have sufficed to bleed off most even of that minority–including many of the active founders.
Their goals were relatively clear and more obviously attainable and involved a mere shift in authority, rather than its outright elimination.
A good “wake-up” is to be observed in the recent “Kelo” matter (involving eminent domain abuse). Everything I read here (and other places) suggested that the Kelos were being forcibly dispossessed by overweening authority. That is only partly true: most of the fault must be seen to lie with Mr. Kelo’s NEIGHBORS–they’re the ones believing their situations improvable by sweetening the common tax-pot at his expense (otherwise the over-weiners wouldn’t be in the “over” position from which to overween).
What the left-radical libertarian wing doesn’t seem to appreciate is that there are only two routes possible for the attainment of their more desired state: force or persuasion. And, if persuasion is the chosen route, they’re not making much of a case understandable to most–even those most amenable to the case for far less regulation and far greater appreciation of the role of sound (Austrian) economics in human life.
Yeah, it’s me from gnxp. I was banned here for insulting someone going by the name “Thomas Paine” for being a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. So I use a different ip address and put periods in my handle. What were you banned at gnxp for?
Comments on this entry are closed.