1000px-Libertarian_Party.svg

Open Letter to Certain Members of the Libertarian Party: Please, stop being assholes

Jehu Featured 19 Comments

If the Libertarian Party ever figures out how to de-link stateless society from unrestrained rule of capitalism, they will be a real third party. I have never seen a group so willing to step on its own message and create hostility to its ideas among the population as the Libertarian Party.

This is the essential Libertarian Party message: “Yes. Elect us and we will strip every protection from you in the most aggressive and predatory fashion we can manage.”

Jesus Christ, how is this message supposed to appeal to anyone? You want to turn public water supplies over to private predators? You want to strip workers of basic protections? This is where you want to begin dismantling the State?

Well, I hope that works for you — it ain’t working for anyone I know. You cannot exploit antisocial sentiments to change society.

In Massachusetts for two decades now Libertarians have been trying to get rid of the so-called temporary income tax surcharge. Like any tax, this “temporary tax” one has become a permanent burden on the citizens. How can the population not support this? Because the spokespersons for the effort are the most primitive thinking pro-capitalist ideologues. They want to dismantle the state to hurt the mass of people, not to make the economic position of the majority better. In their narrow view, everyone in society is a parasite sucking on the tit of the “producers”, i.e., Capital. So, they (honestly, it appears) think dismantling the State must hurt that mass of society.

And this is their essential argument to the majority of society: “We will get rid of you parasites.”

People already think without government GM will be paying $0.50 an hour for labor again. How, in god’s name, is this argument going to appeal to anyone?

Rand Paul made deliberately provocative statements about the Civil Rights Act; in doing this he only reinforced the image of Libertarians as complete reactionaries — not innovative revolutionaries. How did Rand Paul not know Washington was waiting eagerly for him to make a silly statement like that. Washington knows the idea of abolishing the state is just radical enough to be completely misunderstood, and they exploit every mistake by advocates to demonstrate this.

Compare Rand Paul’s idiot outburst to Obama’s complete discipline and attention to his message. Fascists know message matters. A Fascist knows his message must address the perceived needs of the population. Who in the population wants to work for $2.00 an hour? Who wants to let BP turn the Gulf of Mexico into an oily swamp — Obama does, but you will never hear those words out of his mouth! Instead, the Libertarian Party says it for him! My god, are you assholes brain-dead? Even as BP was doing everything it could to kill the Gulf, Obama was speaking about doing everything he could do to avoid the catastrophe. And, what were Libertarians doing? Complaining about the Clean Water Act. You guys are stunningly ignorant.

Every time the Libertarian Party issues a statement, they damage the cause of a stateless society. A stateless society will immediately improve the well-being of the overwhelming majority of society — or it is a pipedream, folks. No one in their right mind is going to vote themselves a pay cut. No one in their right mind wants water fountains labeled “colored only”. If your message carries even the hint of such abominations, you have to be more aggressive than everyone else in kicking those assholes out. Because people already think that without government White Citizens Councils will be running the South again. If you allow these mistaken views any credibility, you are screwed, marginalized, and worthless to the cause.

Everyone who is against the state has to be on the same message: a stateless society will improve the lot of every member of society. And, if you really don’t believe this, you need to leave the movement, because you are an antisocial asshole. If you don’t agree that ending the state improves things for everyone, then you want to dismantle the state to HURT the majority of people — and that is fucked.

If you think a stateless society will lead to segregation and $0.50 an hour wages, and you still want to do this, you need to seek professional help.

NEW SAM JOHNSON LEGISLATION PROTECTS PATIENTS AND HOSPITALS BY REKINDLING CHOICE AND REVIVING DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.

States News Service March 21, 2011 WASHINGTON — The following information was released by the office of Texas Rep. Sam Johnson:

To mark the one year anniversary of ObamaCare, U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (3rd Dist.-Texas) announced his new legislation to protect patients and hospitals from government-controlled healthcare by giving patients more choices and more control and rekindling the vital doctor-patient relationship.

Johnson’s legislation, H.R. 1186, repeals the ban on the development and expansion of physician-owned hospitals – sometimes called specialty hospitals – going back to March 23, 2010. Physician-owned hospitals improve the quality of life, the quality of care and the cost of care in 285 communities in 34 states. As a result of the law’s restrictions aimed to stifle competition and force people into certain types of care, many physician-owned hospitals had to stop or do away with expansion plans, dramatically impacting patients and hospitals, especially in Texas.

According to the Texas Physicians Hospitals Advocacy Center, patients access quality care in roughly 80 physician-owned hospitals, which employ over 22,000 people and added $2.3 billion to the Texas economy. Texas boasts the largest collection of physician-owned hospitals. web site forest park medical center

With over two dozen facilities, the Dallas-Fort Worth (DFW) area has more physician-owned hospitals than any other region in the nation; these hospitals in the DFW area employ over 5,000 Texans, have over 4,765 credentialed physicians, and have over 575 beds.

The Third Congressional District is home to many award winning facilities: Baylor Frisco Medical Center; Forest Park Medical Center – Dallas; The Hospital at Craig Ranch – McKinney;

Integra Rehab Hospital – Plano; Methodist McKinney Hospital; Texas Health Plano Presbyterian Center for Diagnostics and Surgery; Reliant Rehab – North Texas (Richardson); The Heart HOSPITAL Baylor Plano; and Vista Hospital of Dallas.

“Government-run healthcare jeopardizes the doctor-patient relationship on so many levels. One example is how ObamaCare banned the expansion of hospitals where doctors, not bureaucrats, make key medical decisions. My bill would abolish this absurd idea so patients can choose the doctor they want, the hospital they want, and the care that they want – from the medical experts whom they know and trust,” said Johnson, who serves on the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee.

“Doctors and nurses who practice in physician-owned hospitals usually boast the best credentials and the most experience in their field of medicine. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) released national data, which shows significantly better outcomes for patients at hospitals owned and operated by physicians, rather than those under the control of bureaucrats and corporations,” continued Johnson. website forest park medical center

Throughout history physicians have driven innovation in healthcare. Physician ownership and management of hospitals has a distinguished track record in the United States starting with some of the earliest hospitals, built and managed by renowned physicians, like the Mayo Brothers.

Physician-owned hospitals come in a variety of forms: children’s hospitals, traditional general care hospitals, hospitals specializing in and excelling in certain specialties, and joint ventures partnering with traditional non-profit hospitals.

Over time physicians lost some of their leadership role to hospital administrators and corporate organizations who took control of hospitals – and care – to allegedly control costs. The common thread that unites physician-owned hospitals is that doctors govern and control the decisions made. As an added benefit, doctors can bypass bureaucracy and eliminate red tape often created by administrative red tape and corporate bottom lines.

“Texas physician hospitals are transforming health care by offering patients high quality and safe health care. Congressman Johnson’s bill will ensure that Texas patients continue having access to this innovative model,” said Bobby Hillert, Executive Director for the Texas Physician Hospitals Advocacy Center.

“Ask yourself this. Would you rather have a doctor help you make medical decisions or would you rather have a hospital administrator tell you what you can or can’t do? This is about returning freedom, choice, and free enterprise to the American healthcare system,” concluded Johnson, who supports defunding and repealing ObamaCare.

Johnson represents portions of Dallas and Collin Counties.

Author: Jehu Eaves
Visit Jehu's Website - Email Jehu
I am a "marxist-in-recovery", which is to say, I am someone trying to recover for myself the essential humanist thought of Karl Marx. I understand his writings as a radical, critical, and determined opposition to all forms of social coercion and "laws" of society, including, but not limited to, Labor, Property and the State -- a decidedly negative critique of present society that offers no vision of what replaces it. My somewhat awkward musings on this can be found at therealmovement.wordpress.com. I am also on Twitter @damn_jehu
JehuOpen Letter to Certain Members of the Libertarian Party: Please, stop being assholes

Comments 19

  1. werewr

    ‘If you don’t agree that ending the state improves things for
    everyone, then you want to dismantle the state to HURT the majority of
    people — and that is fucked.’

    should read ‘If you don’t agree that ending the state improves things for the majority of people…’

    1. Jehu

      Yes, I should have said “positively damaging to the cause. ” If people for one minute think dismantling the state will injure their interests, they will naturally remain supporters of the two fascist parties. I have no problem explaining that I am against the minimum wage, because, as I always explain:

      1. That is not where I would start — I would begin by dismantling the military machine; and,

      2. By the time the minimum wage was abolished, it would be completely unnecessary.

      I do not understand what is difficult about framing the message this way.

  2. Anonymous

    Nice article. I’d throw “anarcho” capitalists in the same boat with “libertarians” (though obviously they don’t have as much of a public audience).

  3. Vergilius Cincinatus

    Lurking below the surface here seems to be an assumption that libertarians should either exclusively be utilitarians or at least exclusively use utilitarian arguments. There are, I think, good reasons to believe that doing the right thing isn’t always “utility-maximizing.”

    “If you don’t agree that ending the state improves things for
    everyone, then you want to dismantle the state to HURT the majority of
    people — and that is fucked.” I am going to assume that by “everyone” you mean “the majority of people,” otherwise this is a false dilemma. That out of the way–it is only “fucked” to believe in dismantling the state even if it hurts the majority of people if you believe in some kind of hilariously naive Benthamite utilitarianism.

    I did like this for the most part–your points about needing to tread carefully because of people’s beliefs about government (preventing 50 cents/hour wages and white citizens councils) are very good–but it would have been better if you hadn’t completely dismissed deontological libertarianism out of hand.

    1. Jehu

      I see your point, and I understand it — what is right should be done because it is right. However, I must admit to no special insight into what is right in the abstract. I am profoundly skeptical that “right” exists without reference to the actual circumstances of member of society, taken as individuals.

      For the vast majority of people, I think this is a case where “doing the right thing” is precisely what works politically. The state, by definition, is an unproductive burden on society. It is possible to progressively reduce this burden in a way that argues for further reduction, provided antistatists are flexible in their approach and politically sensitive. Much of the approach by some in the movement assumes the state is an unalloyed benefit to a working majority of the population. I take issue with this assumption.

    1. Jehu

      Well, Christiana,

      Okay, let me throw a two ideas out there:

      First, I would focus the attention of the Party on those issues that are sometimes referred to as “low hanging fruit”. Significant issues that have a big pay off in terms of reduced government spending, with the least impact on the largest possible majority of people. The purest form of this are government expenditures that provide little or no direct real income to people: the wars, debt service, are examples of these.

      Second, because so much employment is dependent on direct and indirect military expenditures, I would suggest giving a serious look at reducing the work week by one day, phased in as one additional three day weekend per month/per quarter. The first quarter people would have one additional three day weekend per month; the next quarter, two three day weekends; the third quarter…etc. The new normal four day work week could be phased in this way in one year. This would make room for those displaced by reduced government expenditures to find work in the productive sector of the economy.

      Once, these two measures are taken, people will begin to understand how the progressive reduction of the size of the state could directly benefit them in ways they previously were not able to imagine.

      These are some ideas. I am sure others have more and better ones. The most important thing is to reduce the anxiety about government spending, even as they are progressively reduced by allowing those benefits to flow to the widest possible numbers of people.

      1. Less Antman

        Corporate welfare can take us a very long way: the special interest subsidies to the military, security, banking, energy, agricultural, communications, and health care industries all fit your low-hanging fruit standard, and the more we establish the Big Business-Big Government alliance in the minds of the public, the easier it is to move to the message that “good government” is a utopian fantasy.  Additionally, that is a way to distinguish libertarianism from pro-business conservatism while addressing economic issues.  The other side is shining a light on how occupational licensing, land use controls, and regulation destroy the economic opportunities of the little guy.

        1. Jehu

          I think you are right here about making the tie clear between big government/big business in everyone’s mind. And, few people realize how much effort government into erecting barriers to entry both domestically and internationally.

  4. Less Antman

    “Every time the Libertarian Party issues a statement, they damage the cause of a stateless society.” Every time?   Standing up for free immigration, Wikileaks, unions, peace, equality, and relegalization of drugs damage the cause of a stateless society? Certain members?  Absolutely.  But let’s be fair.  And Rand Paul is not an LP member. All from the last few months of statements by the national LP:

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-40-years-is-enough-end-the-drug-war

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/they-hate-us-because-we-bomb-them-says-libertarian-chair

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lp-chair-the-problem-in-wisconsin-is-not-unions-but-government

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/government-officials-afraid-of-a-full-body-scan-of-their-words-should-resign-say

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-chair-time-to-re-legalize-immigration

  5. Less Antman

    “Every time the Libertarian Party issues a statement, they damage the cause of a stateless society.”  Every time?   Standing up for free immigration, Wikileaks, unions, peace, equality, and relegalization of drugs damage the cause of a stateless society?  All from the last few months of statements by the national LP on its website.

    Certain members?  Absolutely.  But let’s be fair.  And Rand Paul is not an LP member. 

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-party-40-years-is-enough-end-the-drug-war

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-say-marriage-equality-only-one-step-toward-ending-legal-discriminat

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/they-hate-us-because-we-bomb-them-says-libertarian-chair

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/lp-chair-the-problem-in-wisconsin-is-not-unions-but-government

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/government-officials-afraid-of-a-full-body-scan-of-their-words-should-resign-say

    http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarian-chair-time-to-re-legalize-immigration

  6. cow bot

    Stop being an asshole yourself.   Your article is full of falsehoods, contradictions and strawman arguments, or ‘dialectics’ as you Marxists like to call them

  7. GaffiGubbi

    “If you don’t agree that ending the state improves things for
    everyone, then you want to dismantle the state to HURT the majority of
    people — and that is fucked.”

    Wow, what a crashing false dilemma. What if I believed that ending the state would improve things for 95% of the population, but the remaining 5% (those who derive their wealth directly from state interference) would be worse off on account of not having a free teat to suck on? Would the implication then be that my motivation for dismantling the state is to fuck over <51% of the population?

    That aside, there's a Randian "let the chips fall where they may" -argument to be made for dismantling the state, whatever the consequences. Not everyone thinks the ultimate moral goal is to achieve universal prosperity and happiness, but for example to let the people do whatever the fuck they want with their lives (which, according to right-libertarians, would only be possible in a stateless/minarchic society), even if 80% of them were future Darwin Award laureates with no idea what's good for them. I don't share this point of view, but it serves as a reminder to be cautious about moral universals.  A stateless society would not be a utopia – if built properly, the pros would probably outweigh the cons, but the cons would still exist. And the pros and cons would probably not be the same for you and me.

    1. Jehu

      Assuming, for the sake of argument, all your objections, the fact remains convincing a working majority of the population to decide democratically to carry out an anti-statist program rests on demonstrating to them that this program is a benefit to them. This is my essential argument. You can focus on the already admitted flaws in the presentation of the argument — done primarily to elicit a response — or you can focus on the argument itself: There is, in theory at least, a democratic political path to dismantling the State.

      I have no desire to build a utopia or any other sort of replacement to the present state. I am solely concerned to dismantle it — what associations you build on this basis is entirely your business.