Letters to the Editor (Vol. II No. 11)

To The Editor:

You confuse Ayn Rand and the Objectivist with yourself. Any Libertarian publication that would print a tribute in any form to Nikita Khruschev is not only an embarrassment to the libertarian cause but also an outright disgrace to that cause. One does not ‘pay homage’ to a mass murderer.

Miss Rand’s remarks concerning anarchism may not have been objective but to drop context to the degree that you did and to try to pretend that Miss Rand has offered nothing to libertarian thought and in fact has nothing to offer is such an extreme blanking out of reality that it staggers my imagination.

Since Miss Rand has so much more to offer libertarian thought than you could ever hope to offer, I’ll continue to hold her as foremost spokesman for the libertarian movement.

One more question. Do you really believe that there would have been a Libertarian Conference had Ayn Rand not existed?

Yours Truly, Robert Cassella

Do you really believe there would have been a Libertarian Conference had Khruschev accepted JFK’s invitation to a nuclear pillow fight over Cuba? Ed.

To The Editor:

We would like to commend John V. Peters for the ideas he endorsed in his ‘letter to the editor’, (Abolitionist, Oct., 1971) entitled, “For an Effective Conspiracy”. If a rational anarchistic society is to come about, it will only be the result of intense intellectual efforts such as Mr. Peters suggests. The ultimate determiners of conditions of human existence are ideas. When the logical idea of the illegitimacy of the State penetrates the consciousness of individuals (especially leaders) in reasonable numbers, it will filter down by social-metaphysical osmosis to most of the remaining population. When this occurs, people will refuse to support the State. In short, when we succeed in ideologically disarming the State by the conscious, deliberate, and intense propagation of rational anarchistic ideas, we will also simultaneously succeed in eliminating the need to physically disarm them. The one condition goes with the other.

Our second comment is addressed to some of your editors, such as John Brotschol, Ralph Fucetola III, and Jerome Tuccille. Our question is: are you gentlemen anarchists or not? Please tell your readers because your position is not clear from the writings we have seen. If you are not anarchists, then you must advocate some sort of political structure (Libertarian government?) which would have to maintain itself by aggression, and we are sure that you gentlemen would claim to be opposed to aggression! If this is so, on what grounds do you hold that your politics is any different in principle to what exists now? On the other hand, if you are anarchists, (and if you are opposed to government in principle you must be), on what grounds do you engage in the political process?

If the State is illegitimate, then how will partaking in the activities which bring about and perpetuate the State, help us? The time and effort put into political activities is time and effort which could be (as Mr. Peters states) put into intellectual, academic, and journalistic effort which might cause millions of people to cease even looking to the State for help! If Ralph Fucetola III spends his time in politics certain things offer. First, he morally sanctions the political process by deliberately partaking in it. Secondly, he thereby directly sanctions the use of the State to achieve certain ends. Now if the State is illegitimate to use as a means to an end, by what rule of logic, or epistemology, does it become legitimate for an anarchist to use the State, (which means the use of aggression) for his ends, in the presence of the many moral alternatives, such as outlined by Mr. Peters?

At a political meeting about four years ago, we can recall being present when Objectivists, who held the same contradictory ideas which you gentlemen are entertaining, urged those who desired a non-coercive society to go out and vote for Nixon. At that time, Nixon seemed to be a great improvement over the Johnson administration. Nixon’s political reputation at that time indicated that he was an advocate for “free enterprise.” The fact is, the only tool a politician has is aggression! Anyone entering the political arena must, because of the nature of government and politics, move toward greater and greater evil; so why would rational men want to support any politician, regardless of his promises? History at least, if not reason, should tell these gentlemen that the reliance upon a politician’s promise to lessen or abolish governmental aggression is tantamount to relying on a termite’s promise not to eat so much, or quit eating trees.

To our mind, your magazine will accomplish far more toward the goal of abolishing the State by journalistic efforts such as the other excellent articles in the October issue by Messrs. Halliday, Halbrook, and Peters, rather than filling its pages with political writings. Can a government supporter be persuaded that government is not necessary to achieve his good ends if at the same time he observes the persuader using the governmental process to achieve his (the persuader’s) good ends? The average government supporter would call that “vile hypocrisy,” and he would be right-he would also most likely turn a deaf ear to the persuader’s arguments that a government is not necessary! By the very fact that libertarians are engaging in politics, they are saying loud and clear that while they do not believe government to be necessary, it is necessary for them to use the governmental process! Such contradictions can only hinder the cause for freedom from governmental aggression.

But there is another point of importance here: what evidence do these libertarians have for claiming that a rational anarchist society is impossible within the forseeable future? It is this type of malevolent thinking which pushed them into the contradictory position of advocating “some” politics, and which in turn pushes the “forseeable future” ever farther and farther away! If every anarchist were to persuade only two other individuals per year (on an average) that government is not only unnecessary, but illegitimate, (and we are sure that gentlemen such as Mr. Brotschol et al can do better than that!) then assuming there are only 500 rational anarchists in North America today, in eleven years, (if each anarchist continued to further convince only two more people per year) 88 million people would be convinced of the non-necessity of government! If you do not believe this, work this out for yourselves, it is a simple mathematical progression, based on very realistic premises.

In our view, this goal is a hell of a lot more practical than the attempt to achieve liberty through political means.

Yours truly, Richard and Ernestine Perkins

Reply

by John Brotschol

The tactical position advanced by Richard and Ernestine Perkins is a mere reflection of the political naivete spouting forth from the Society for Individual Liberty’s main office in Philadelphia. There can be no doubt that education is the foundation for the creation of a libertarian society, but to do nothing until everyone becomes a libertarian is unbelievable. Pure education is an excellent long term strategy but to completely ignore the political system we live in, while solely concentrating on education, spells doom for the cause. Very few people care about what society will be like after they are dead. It is incumbent upon us to shed our pure white robes and begin relating libertarianism to the man on the street who is tired of paying exorbitant taxes to line the pockets of the government bureaucracy. If this means spending some time engaging in politics, we should do it. I realize many libertarians prefer spending their time engaged in scholarly work. I have no objection to this. Since they enjoy their endeavors, their productivity is good and libertarianism is the winner. However, some of us enjoy recruiting outside the university and working in politics to achieve given goals that would improve existing conditions for the individual, while simultaneously spreading libertarianism to a much wider audience. It is this two pronged approach that has caused a handful of libertarians and myself to become active in the Ripon Society. We are trying to infect this influential organization with some ideas that might lead to the decentralization of power.

In the New Jersey chapter of the Ripon Society, libertarians maintain a very significant caucus that must be reckoned with. Very recently, this writer was offered the position of research director for the state chapter—what an excellent vehicle to spread some libertarian concepts! A contributing editor to this publication, William Baumgarth, combines both scholarship and political action at Harvard University Graduate School. While completing his doctorate and teaching undergraduates, Mr. Baumgarth is working in the national office of the Ripon Society in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A few weeks ago, he was asked to write a regular column for their national publication, The Ripon Forum. Why shouldn’t this be acceptable to educationalists? I have noticed in the last couple of years that educationalists are great at educating other libertarians but leave much to be desired when it comes to gaining new recruits. I thought the November Libertarian Conference in New York City was a prime example of this. Not once, during the two day gathering was there a discussion of tactics. Instead, we just sat there listening to lecture after lecture on such topics as Kid Lib, The Self-Improvement of the Libertarian Psyche, etc. It is wasn’t for the social benefits of these gatherings, I would stay home because I brought away nothing new.

Education breaks down completely when it comes to trying to enact certain planks of its program. The educationalists refuse to soil their clean white garments, using the excuse that it is immoral to employ the political system because it gives sanction to its existence. This is sheer nonsense. Dr. Murray Rothbard, at an October Taxpayer Conference in New Jersey, said in reply to a purist’s question on participation in elections: “If you engage in reform politics, it doesn’t mean you’re endorsing the whole coercive apparatus. You’re simply taking advantage of this tiny area in which they’re allowing you to have some choice. Voting is merely the first line of defense, and we are fools if we don’t use it.”

Finally, the participatory approach lends our assistance to libertarian projects being advanced by decentralist oriented groups. In the case of the Ripon Society, they support the termination of military conscription, guaranteeing the right to dissent for GI’s, legalization of marijuana, and curbing the military-industrial complex. You may think this is shortsighted, but I am tired of engaging solely in end game tactics. I am a libertarian situated in the United States at position A, a very centralized society and every day a little more of my individual liberties are being eroded; I would like to reach position Z with all coercion terminated. However, if I can help in moving this country to position B in my lifetime, I’ll consider it an improvement and well worth my effort, even if it means engaging in the political process.