|
THE BOLD PATH IS THE TRUE PATH TO LIBERTY - by Carla Howell
copyright 2003 Carla Howell
Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "Cause and effect, means and ends, seed and fruit cannot be severed; for the effect already blooms in the cause, the end pre-exists in the means, the fruit in the seed."
The Government policy we have today was pre-determined by the campaigns of Big Government Democrats and Big Government Republicans. Their means is Big Government campaign proposals and Big Government campaign promises. When elected, they vote Big Government.
Their means is Big Government. Their end is Big Government.
But the end that Libertarians want is small government.
The Libertarian Party platform calls for a dramatically smaller government than what we have today: a government that is authorized only to defend our lives, our liberty, and our property. Nothing more.
No income tax. No War on Drugs. No corporate or personal welfare. No anti-gun laws. No government-run health care. No government schools. No involvement in the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, or any international organization. No foreign aid, no foreign bribes, no foreign intervention. No victimless crimes. No laws that in any way prohibit free speech or freedom of the press.
Small, Libertarian government demands an end to all these Big Government programs, and an end to the taxes that fund them. To achieve our Libertarian end, we must repeal, dismantle, and de-fund thousands of Big Government programs. Slash taxes at all levels of government.
How can Libertarians possibly accomplish such ambitious goals?
The government policy we'll end up with pre-exists in the campaign proposals and promises and in the ballot initiatives on which we run. Some Libertarians, not wanting to appear too radical, base their campaign proposals on those of Democrat and Republican candidates and modify them to be more Libertarian.
This approach limits us to choices that are based on proposals of our opponents - whose goals are the opposite of ours. It limits our thinking to politically correct options that exist inside a box called "Big Government". These options validate and empower the notion that government is the solution to human problems. They condone the devastation to life, liberty, and property caused by existing Big Government programs.
A means that is inside the Big Government box yields an end that is inside the Big Government box.
If we campaign on Big Government issues, we'll end up with Big Government. If we campaign on non-Libertarian issues, we'll end up with non-Libertarian government. If we campaign on limiting government, we'll end up preserving and protecting Big Government.
If we campaign on tiny, timid, tepid reductions in Government, then we need to ask ourselves: What if we were to get these cuts enacted into law? Would government actually shrink? Would revenue go down? Or would other forces keep it just as high? Or higher?
If it shrinks, would success depend on having a majority of legislators or Congressmen that propose and pass those reductions year after year? For how long? Ten years? One hundred years? How long would it take to make government small?
How many lawmakers would we have to trust to make it happen? Would one bad election - or another war - allow it to grow back overnight and wipe out any gains that were made?
Would it change things so little, or so slowly, that voters would be unable to perceive significant benefit in a Libertarian government? Is it even possible to reduce the size of government by small increments?
But if our means is small government; if we proudly campaign on bold, small government proposals that dismantle Big Government programs; if we propose to dramatically cut taxes and visibly and immediately benefit voters, then our end will be small government.
If our means is small government, we'll have a shot at actually bringing forth small government. A shot at ending the income tax. A chance to end the War on Drugs. A possibility of 100% health and education freedom.
Big Government means yields a Big Government end. Compromising means yields a compromising end. Timid means yields a timid end.
Bold, small government Libertarian means yields a bold, small government Libertarian end.
Emerson said, "The sower may mistake and sow his peas crookedly; the peas make no mistake, but come up and show his line."
We must constantly recast, redirect, and reshape the political debate. We must propose alternatives that are based on Libertarian small government.
Then we must persuasively communicate what we offer. Highlight the inevitable failures and the damage of Big Government. Hail the virtues of small government. Spell out specific small government proposals and their benefits.
Some Libertarians claim a Chameleon Strategy can work. They say we can run on non-Libertarian, moderate Libertarian, or even anti-Libertarian proposals so we appear like Democrat and Republican candidates - claiming our candidates will simply vote Libertarian once elected to office.
Not so. Leonard Read said it best: "No politician can fly higher in office than he flew while getting there."
Some say that a bold, small government Libertarian means can't win. But why would we want to "win" if "winning" means more Big Government?
Our ballot Question 1 to end the income tax in Massachusetts demonstrated that bold tax cuts can get just as many votes - or more - than moderate ones.
Massachusetts ballot Question 3 in 1990 offered a tiny reduction in the income tax. It won 40% of the vote. Massachusetts ballot Question 1 in 2002, our Libertarian Initiative to completely end the income tax, won 45%.
Why? Huge, immediate, direct benefits for every single voter. A reason to get out and vote! $3,000 back to each of 3,000,000 taxpayers - every year! 300,000 to 500,000 desperately needed new jobs. Huge, immediate, direct benefits!
The same applies to proposals made by Libertarian candidates. There's not a shred of evidence that a Libertarian running on a moderate platform gets any more votes than a bold Libertarian campaign.
In fact, the two biggest statewide votes ever achieved by Libertarian candidates were my US Senate race in 2000 against Ted Kennedy and Michael Cloud for US Senate against John Kerry in 2002. Both were very bold, small government Libertarian campaigns that proposed dramatic reductions in taxes and spending.
45% for Question 1 to End the Income Tax in Massachusetts was by far the best Libertarian vote ever won. 885,683 votes in the tiny state of Massachusetts - a Big Government, liberal stronghold.
It may well be the only way Libertarians can change politics in America is with proposals that are so bold, and that offer such huge benefits, that we motivate voters to show up at the polls.
Libertarians have two choices. Follow the issues of our Big Government opponents or lead with our small government libertarian vision.
We can set the agenda. We can propose bold policies with huge benefits to voters that re-define the political landscape. And we can propose bold, small government at any level of government.
Federal candidates can advocate ending the federal income tax, ending the War on Drugs, and ending Social Security.
State candidates can end state income taxes - or whatever tax feeds the state coffers the most; dismantle government health, education, and housing programs; turn down federal bribes and refuse federal mandates.
Local candidates can refuse to take state bribes, dramatically cut local taxes, fire any police chief who refuses to issue a gun license, and fire police officers who arrest people for victimless "crimes".
Mahatma Gandhi is respected and revered today, but he wasn't when he was alive. Winston Churchill called him "nauseating" and a "half-naked fakir."
But Gandhi held strong. He lived his vision of an independent India. He didn't play by the rules of the British colonists.
His means was set on his terms, on his goal of ending British rule. His end was total independence. Gandhi changed India forever.
Gandhi said, "Take care of the means, and the end will take care of itself."
Bold, small government Libertarian campaigns are the means to a small government end.
Thinking about Sold on Bold.....Wes Alexander
I often wonder which method is most effective to educate people about the liberty they are losing and the tendency of government to grow. People who enjoy learning new things are constantly seeking knowledge and eventually discover Frederic Bastiat, history, and the natural law that exists in free markets. This is what happened to me at age 45. I like Ms. Howell's recommendation about bold moves and I wish there was a way to expose more people to libertarian philosophy without infringing on their freedom to live in ignorant subservience to the state.
Like any good convert, I want to expose more people to libertarian ideas quicker, faster, sooner, and without making them mad. So far, I've worked on my personal web site, written letters to the local paper, talked to everybody I know, and financially supported those organizations that educate and disseminate the most information. These organizations are best represented by the Ludwig von Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com, and the Foundation for Economic Education.
I'm afraid the local paper views me as a trouble maker, and many of my associates probably consider politics "off limits" when I'm around. Maybe I'm overreacting, but all the talk about spam regulation may be related to my never ending attempts via email to embarrass, shame, or educate politicians at every level. I tend to cover them up. My hope is that someday, one or two may finally understand the immorality of their legal theft and offensive laws.
Perhaps the catalyst for bold change will be a powerful personality like Ms. Howell, a national best selling novel, a clever television show, massive tax protests, a constitutional amendment, or even bill boards. I wonder if liberty would benefit from commercial advertising. Gary North will know. The trick would be to figure out a way to spread "The Word" all the while making enough money to support the advertisements that are spreading "The Word."
My favorite idea is some sort of non-profit foundation that installs Signs of Liberty all over the American landscape. These could be standard bill boards or something more grassroots like the "See Rock City" graphics painted all over barns throughout the Southeast. Each sign would have one or two quotes followed by the author and a call for action that included a phone number or web site. Here's an example.
|
"Law is the God given right of organized self defense." - Frederic Bastiat
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." - Stuart Mill
Join us at www.getfree.com
1-800-Get-Free
|
Carla Howell and others are working on bold strategies that deserve our continued support and development. Here are four you may find interesting.
The Small Government Act
Downsize DC
The Free State Project
Homeschooling Today
Let me know if you have any suggestions or comments about the billboard idea.
|
