In 1996 the best and brightest presidential candidate for the Republican party was Senator Bob Dole. As Dole emerged as the best hope against the second reign of the evil Clinton empire, I remember watching his campaign stops and speeches. I was several years out of college and had strongly identified as a conservative due to the messages of smaller government and more individual freedoms.
And then he said it. Dole said something that hit me like a ton of bricks and made me question everything I had believed about the Republican party and conservatism up to that point.
On a campaign stop, Dole was crowing about how he had led a blue-ribbon panel that had saved social security until 2034.
Saved until 2034? Then what? This was your answer to everything? Kick the can so far down the road that some other poor saps will have to make impossibly hard decisions long after you have passed? This was the viable option? This is what we could count on from the brightest minds on our side?
The questions continued. What good were any of them? On one hand I was hearing messages of smaller government and more personal responsibility, but on the other hand candidates were trying to convince us of how important they and their policies were. It really started to become clear to me that the Republicans were just as interested in controlling our lives as the Democrats were. I felt betrayed and hopeless that no matter who won; government would get larger and more intrusive.
Then by almost by some weird cosmic design, during that very campaign, I switched on C-Span who was covering the Libertarian Party Convention. I watched Harry Browne, the LP candidate, describe what his first days in office would look like. He talked about how he would undo all previous and overreaching executive orders; he talked about pardoning all federal non-violent convicts; he talked about ending the “useless and insane” war on drugs; he talked about securing our Second Amendment rights; he talked about ending welfare entitlements and “replacing them with nothing”; and he talked about vetoing any legislation that came before him that was not expressly authorized by the Constitution.
This is what I was looking for! A party with candidates that were not interested in advancing policies that intruded on my life. It was amazing that there was a party (and not the Republican party) that believed, in the words of Ronald Reagan, government was the source of problems and not the solution to them.
But what was the role of government then? I began my study of libertarian principles and I have not stopped since. I started by reading Harry Browne’s book, Why Government Doesn’t Work and Charles Murray’s, What it Means to be Libertarian. I felt vindicated that a system of government could exist where people were free to choose everything and anything that they thought was important to their own fulfillment, as long as they didn’t violate the rights of others.
Harry Browne at the 1996 Libertarian Party national convention. (Image from C-Span footage.)
The more I learned, the more I wanted to learn. I had always been a student of the American Revolution, but now I felt more like a kindred spirit with the Founding Fathers in our classical liberal beliefs. I learned more about their influences, like Adam Smith and John Locke.
I found great comfort in different resources that promoted libertarian principles like the Cato Institute and Reason Foundation. I began studying libertarian economists Ludwig Von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt and others.
The more I learned, the more I despised the two ruling political powers and their successful attempts to squeeze out political choice. It has become very clear that not only is there little political difference between the two parties, but that they are less concerned about the balance of power as they are in the preservation of their dual power.
My beliefs have evolved to almost the point of anarchy. I strongly believe that no government is preferable to a well-meaning government. The only purpose for government in my mind is to enforce contracts and protect individual liberties.
The learning continues. Besides thought leaders who write books, articles, and appear on TV, I learn much from regular people, like me, and their posts and comments on social media. Groups like We Are Libertarians and Liberty Memes Community Group are especially helpful. What better way to reason through issues of the day and how they are best solved by individuals, than to engage with individual people?
Michael Joesten is a fan of the We Are Libertarians podcast and a libertarian activist.
I hear it a lot, being a Libertarian running for office: those Libertarians and their “crazy” ideas. Letting people choose to live their lives as they see fit, not as the government forces them to? How would we all survive? How would that work? Isn’t that something that only works in small widespread farm communities?
When debating people, I make no bones about being a Libertarian. “Oh,” I hear, “you’re an anarchist.” I’m not sure where that one comes from, but it seems like it’s mostly made up by people who just can’t grasp the thought of people being able to decide on things for themselves. “You just want the old and poor to be left alone.” Apparently, without government assistance, which means taking money from one group of people, by force, and giving that money to another, we as humane individuals would never help people in need. “Libertarianism was a nice idea when we were an agriculture society, but it doesn’t work in large urban areas.” No, that is when it is needed most, if there is no one around you telling you want to do, you don’t need a form of government that protects you from anyone. And my favorite: “you’re just selfish!” Yeah, that’s me, the selfish one who wants to give people more power over their own lives.
What is Libertarianism?
For those that read those quotes and didn’t see immediately what was wrong with them, let’s start by enlightening you about what libertarianism is and what it isn’t.
Boiled down, the libertarian philosophy is this: “People should be free to live their lives as they choose as long as they do not directly prevent others from doing the same.” What a radical idea!
That does not mean that Libertarians are for no government. To infer that means that you read only the first half of that statement and skipped the second. Yes, there are a group of people (often labeled as Anarcho-Capitalists) who are for totally free markets with no regulation. And there are other groups like voluntaryists, anarchists, etc. But there are also minarchists that are part of the libertarian view. Look at it like Christianity. To be a Christian you must believe that Jesus is your savior, but there are many ways of going about living your life beyond that and expressing your faith. Look at how many different types of Christians exist.
In relation to the markets, let’s take a closer look. If two people enter into a contract, that contract is a legally binding document. What does that mean? It means that if one side or the other attempted to violate that contract, they are in violation of the law (meaning government). That is governmental regulation. With no governmental regulation, contract law is meaningless, contracts are meaningless, and no one can be held accountable for anything in them. Anarchists will argue that private organizations can enforce them, but isn’t that just another word for government if you give a body the legal right to use force over others?
This is directly applicable to the second part of the basic libertarian principle: Government’s place is in regulating the interactions between individuals. If two people agree to the terms of a contract, the government is there to ensure that the contract is followed as agreed upon. It is also there to ensure that there is no fraud taking place when the contract was agreed to or afterwards. But, it is not there to determine if someone made a bad decision or unwisely agreed to something that someone else may think was not in their best interests. That is up to the individual signing the contract to decide.
Government should also be involved to ensure that all markets are free. Monopolies prevent this free market from working. Government should therefore be there to make sure that no one person or company has a complete monopoly over any one area of the markets. Unfortunately, most monopolies that exist today do so not just with the acquiescence of government, but with their support. They could not exist as monopolies without government getting involved. This usually plays out with licensing of a business, a way for current business owners to ensure that no new entrants into a market are allowed to compete for the part of the market that they have already acquired.
Government should also not be for picking winners and losers. Trying to punish a company because it is doing well or those who are running the company have different politics than the current administrations should be forbidden. Unfortunately, today, this happens frequently and is a current way that the two major parties play individuals against each other for their votes.
Two women in New York City deliver homemade meals to the homeless population in their city. (Photo by Ed Yourdon, from Wikimedia Commons)
The government should be ensuring that people are not infringing upon other’s rights to live their lives as they choose. We should not be telling adults that they cannot buy beer on a Sunday, or sign a contract on Sunday, or buy a pack of cigarettes or whatever drug of choice they choose, it should be left to the individual to decide. However, if someone were to harm another while taking those drugs of choice, they should be arrested and punished for that behavior. If you want to drink a fifth of scotch at home, the government should not tell you that you can’t, but the minute you get behind the wheel of a car and endanger the rest of us… Sorry, your right to make your own choices ends at that point.
Who do we choose to love? Who do we choose to spend our time with? I don’t see how that is any business of any government agency. What goes on between two consenting adults is between them, not anyone else who might have a large group of people who think it is ‘icky’. That’s no one’s business but their own.
Libertarianism is not about leaving the poor and old to fend for themselves and it is certainly not about selfishness
Quite the contrary, we should be helping our fellow man who is in need. But we should decide when and where that help comes from. If a single mother of four is working hard to put her children through school and take care of them but has a rough month, perhaps she chooses not to help that month. Under our current system, she has no way of doing that. The government gets its cut before she has any say in the matter. So more often than I feel comfortable with, that person ends up in worse shape and eventually needs help that they wouldn’t have needed had they been able to make that choice for themselves.
Here is a current example of our welfare system in the United States. Three men are eating lunch on a park bench. A homeless man comes up and asks for some money to buy some food. The first two men say sure and each get five dollars out to give to him. They then look to the third one who says he can’t do it right now. What do the two men do? They hold him down and take the money from him and then give the fifteen dollars to the homeless man. That third man, who was going to take that money home to help feed his children is left to fend for himself now. Now that is not compassion. That is selfish. You’re selfish if you’re only willing to help another if you know that others are also helping him. That is what our welfare system is about, making sure that you are giving your money to help the poor and elderly as long as you know that everyone else is too.
Libertarianism is Relevant
Libertarianism is about the here and now more than ever before
I have never understood the argument that in a rural society, libertarianism is ok, but in a city environment, well, it’s just not workable. Really? When do you need protection to make your own choices and have the government work out the disputes between you and your neighbors more than in a large urban city? If I am being drunk and obnoxious at home on a large farm with 200 acres, who cares? If I drive my car drunk around my property, who cares? But if I am being drunk and obnoxious or driving drunk in a city with a large population? Other’s rights are being violated. Nothing in libertarianism says that you have to put up with that situation, it is an infringement upon you.
How Have the Other Parties Done?
People think that ensuring that individuals are free and enjoying their liberties is “crazy” and continue to elect the same two parties to office thinking that it is doing any good. Let’s take a look at what they have done to our country.
(Photo from Wikimedia Commons)
In 1979 the Department of Education was formed. It was only to have a small budget of 14.5 billion and employ less than 100 people. Today, its budget is well over 32 billion and it employs over 5000 people, 90 percent who were deemed “nonessential” during a recent government shutdown. The education spending rate has increased three times as fast as other non-defense discretionary programs, 30% vs. 8%. We have gone from spending $3000 per pupil to $6000 (adjusted for inflation). What have we gotten?
According to Lisa Snell’s article “Stimulus Won’t Change the Education System’s Status Quo” in Reason Magazine: “The average reading and math scores for 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), the nation’s benchmark for student achievement, are no better today than they were in 1971; SAT verbal scores show a decline (from 530 in 1972 to 504 today); and SAT math scores have been essentially flat (from 509 in 1972 to 515 today). U.S. graduation rates were 78 percent in 1972 and are 74 percent today; and U.S. 15-year-olds score below the international average on science and math literacy when compared with 30 OECD countries—American kids rank behind students from Poland, Hungary, and France to name a few.”
So, we have created a bureaucracy that is eating itself, injecting politics further into our school system, and creating students that are worse off than they were before we got involved. And the answer that we hear from Washington? More spending, more control, more of the same.
And they call libertarians crazy.
When you run out of money at the end of the month, what do you do? Cut spending? More often than not. Increase your income? Some people get second jobs or other income for that. Do you just keep spending and borrowing more? More citizens are doing that and finding out that it doesn’t work well in the long run. Unfortunately, our government hasn’t learned that lesson yet…
The US experienced high growth in the 50s and 60s, yet our debt remained largely unchanged when compared with inflation. However, starting in the 1970s and skyrocketing since, it has ballooned up to 16 Trillion dollars. But, that’s not the worse part. You see, what the politicians won’t tell you is the dirty little secret that those numbers are just public debt. That is debt that the government owes to the public or other entities outside of the government. That’s not our total debt. Our total debt, as of today, when including money that the government has borrowed from itself (largely in the shape of the Social Security Trust Fund and other pension plans) is…
Yes, that is over 22 trillion dollars that our government must pay back. This number can be tracked for a current snapshot or over time by using the US Treasury’s Debt to the Penny. Don’t just take my word for it, go look it up yourself.
So, why don’t we hear that number? Why only the 16 Trillion? Well, other than the obvious “it sounds better”, the short answer is that the government doesn’t seem to want anyone to know that it has been raiding our Social Security trust fund for decades. Even Bill Clinton who is touted with “running a surplus” is hiding those numbers. At no time during the Clinton administration did our national debt decrease. Our public deficit did go down a year or two, but only by a little and only on the public side of things. But our Intragovernmental Holdings still increased more than the public debt decreased.
The people who are in power now are wanting you to give them the power to spend more money, on top of all of the money they already owe. Does that sound like a sound plan to you? Do you think that we can continue to spend money at this rate, or higher if Washington had its way, and not eventually have to pay up? I can only say I am glad they are not in charge of my finances.
And they call libertarians crazy.
(Photo from Wikimedia Commons)
Every year since 1972 our prison population has increased, until this last year. There are currently over 2 million people behind bars in the US, or better put, one out of every 133 of us. We have 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prison population. We incarcerate more than any other country, including China. And this year the prison population went down, not because there were less crimes, but because of budget constraints more prisoners were let go before finishing their sentences. And the fastest growing segment of that population: nonviolent, first time offenders of drug laws. Our war on drugs has failed miserably and we continue to take a hard stand against an activity that less than 100 years ago would have taken an amendment to the US Constitution to enforce.
The funny thing is that taking drugs is not illegal. It cannot be illegal according to the Supreme Court. Instead, they make “possession” of the drug illegal. It’s an interesting work around that has resulted in the increase of drug use, the cost to the taxpayers in the billions, and the incarceration rates in the US to skyrocket. Worse, because of the federal laws, the government can’t regulate the drugs like they can with cigarettes and alcohol. And it can’t be taxed either. Individuals with problems are less likely to get help for fear of being arrested, funding to help those people is not collected and we put nonviolent drug users in the same prisons as violent convicts, an atmosphere that is more likely to turn them to a further life of crime than they would have if they were left alone.
And they call libertarians crazy.
Miscellaneous “Do Not Dos”
We are just touching the surface here and I could (and may) write a book about all of this, but let’s speed things up with a short list of some of the things you can’t do in Indiana (the state I personally live in) because of the actions of the two parties (other states are probably as messed up as we are):
Properly choose the school you send your children to (private or public) unless you are rich.
Walk onto a plane with a bottle of water (federal law).
Drive your car without a seat belt on.
Buy alcohol on Sunday.
Sign a contract on Sunday (no car sales on Sunday as a result).
Play poker online (federal law).
Play poker at a table, with real cards, unless on a body of water and approved by the state.
Possess marijuana (federal and state law).
Carry drinks into a restaurant or bar.
Why Continue to Support the Duopoly?
So, you’ve heard that the Libertarians are a crazy bunch, that their ideals are outdated or only work in a “utopia”. All I ask is that you take a look back at the way the Democrats and Republicans have run this state and this country and ask yourself.
Who are the crazy ones? The Libertarians who want to give us more control over our individual lives as long as we don’t violate the rights of others. Or the Republicans and Democrats who have given us over half of a century of declining education, declining standards of living, increased spending, increased debt and continually pass more and more laws that tell you how to live your life?
Or are the crazy people the ones that keep sending the same people back to the state house and Washington thinking that “this time” things will be different. Isn’t that like taking the milk out of the refrigerator and tasting that it is bad and then putting it back in thinking that tomorrow it will be good again?
My recommendation is to throw out your preconceived notions about what others have told you about Libertarian thought and the Libertarian Party and take a closer look at what we are really saying, what we really stand for. Don’t let the people who have run this country into the ground make up your mind for you. You can go to the Libertarian Party’s website and see for yourself what the crazy Libertarians are talking about.
Rhinehold is a host of the WAL Daily podcast and a regular guest on the We Are Libertarians podcast.
(This article was originally published on Rhinehold.org on Oct. 25th, 2010. It has slightly edited for clarity and style and republished with the author’s permission. Rhinehold did make minor updates to the original article as well.)
Did Trump Lose the Shutdown Fight? Depends on Who You Ask? By Ryan Lindsey
WAL Reader is a quarterly journal from We Are Libertarians. It is available online, on Kindle, or in print. Get yours by visiting WALReader.com.
I was convinced that Trump’s total cave on the longest federal shutdown in history was a mortal wound to Trump. If he had kept the shutdown going indefinitely or until congress finally surrendered border wall funding to him, I was fully convinced that the 2020 race was his to lose. I was equally certain that if he was the one to blink first, that the tables would flip, and his reelection would be nearly impossible against any but a few of the DNC’s contenders.
But then, two days after the shutdown ended, I overheard a conversation among several people who I know to be fundamentally decent and intelligent individuals who had gladly voted for Trump in 2016. They were discussing the end of the shutdown, but what they were saying didn’t align at all with what I (perhaps arrogantly) had assumed they would be saying. What I heard from them was nothing but praise for their president – he had been perfectly reasonable and given the Pelosi and the Democrats every opportunity to end the shutdown on their own; he was just making sure that federal workers would begin getting paid again (after not caring about that for over thirty days); he was simply setting the stage to better justify executive action and a national emergency later on; etc.
An Isolated Incident of Loyalty?
I was surprised, and frankly I still can’t empathize with their sentiments – if I had voted for Trump based on his campaign promises and “tough guy, never-back-down” persona, I would have been livid at the absolute disaster of the shutdown, which was rendered meaningless by his willingness to let Pelosi walk all over him. Why weren’t they fuming, why didn’t they feel betrayed? I thought (and hoped) that they were just a minority of Trump supporters. Surly most of his 2016 voters felt the same indignation and sense of being duped as Ann Coulter, Steve Bannon, Michael Savage, and many others in the conservative-populist movement.
No, I had assumed wrong again. A couple more days after overhearing that conversation (four days after the shutdown ended) I tuned into the local conservative FM talk radio station on my commute to work. I was curious to see what the local morning show host, Nick Reed (who, to his credit is often extremely nonpartisan and has strong libertarian streaks on many issues), had to say about the shutdown ending and the backlash Trump has received from many of the more “prestigious”, “elite” conservative opinion directors. For most of my drive, Reed was taking calls from listeners who were giving their two cents about Trump reopening the government. My dread over the state of the GOP increased as one after another, callers justified the president’s actions. Narratives of 4, 5, 6, 12D chess filled the airwaves.
Nick Reed of KSGF’s Nick Reed Show. (Facebook Live)
Now, I personally do not buy into this whole idea that Trump is actually a political chess master. I think the claim that a political novice with no knowledge of how the gears of bureaucracy and congress turn is somehow the most genius man to ever sit in the White House is absolutely bogus and has no backing at all in reality. In my opinion, the president has just slightly more political acumen in his whole body as the lowliest congressional aid has in their right arm (that is not an indictment on his character or abilities as a campaigner – those are separate issues all together). I still firmly believe that Trump lost the shutdown battle and that in any rational world the whole fiasco would have absolutely crippled his reelection campaign. Clearly that wasn’t the case though. Trump’s 2016 supporters either didn’t care about their man’s defeat or they were convinced that it wasn’t a defeat at all.
The Power is His
Of course, a couple of weeks after caving into Pelosi and Schumer, Trump signed a declaration of a national emergency in regard to the border and his cherished wall project. He couldn’t get what he wanted from congress, so he would use alleged executive authority to get his funds instead. While this move was received with horror from most members of the mainstream media and many federal officials, it was not an unprecedented powergrab. American presidents have spent the better part of two centuries acquiring power that is not constitutionally theirs – particularly the previous two, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
By this point, it was not surprising at all when I almost immediately saw conservatives who had denounced Obama’s powergrabs cheer on this act of executive overreach by Trump. Even some people who I had considered libertarians were supportive of this move. Republican congressmen like Thomas Massie and Justin Amash who spoke out against the national emergency declaration received a solid thrashing from conservative media and activists.
But of course they did – those people were not truly opposed to the executive actions of Obama and Bush, they were just opposed to who was taking the action. In their minds, Trump not only needed but deserved this power.
Loyal to a Fault
I wasn’t taking one critical factor into account: you should never underestimate how loyal Trump’s supporters are to him personally. They’re not loyal to his ideals or his policy proposals, they’re loyal to him. If Trump says he won a fight, then he won that fight in the minds of the Trump cultists, regardless of what the facts or reason say.
The cult of personality that is seducing the GOP has finally changed – Ronald Reagan has lost his throne to Trump.
Embarrassingly, this is a mistake I have made with Trump multiple times since he first announced his plans to take the presidency nearly four years ago. I underestimated his supporters’ unconditional loyalty to him all throughout the entire Republican primary and general campaign. When he won the election, I was forced to take a step back and admit that to most of his supporters, Trump’s actions ultimately did not matter. All that mattered to them was that he was him. But still, I forget that lesson occasionally. Why?
Maybe it’s because I’m not above the fray and have also fallen into different cults of personality at times. Upon honest reflection, I do think this is a temptation I have become better at resisting, but still, maybe I make myself forget about the Trump cult of personality because I am ashamed of my own follies in that area. Ask anyone who knew me during 2012 to 2016 and I’m sure they could tell you all about my obsession with Ron and Rand Paul, and the blinders I wore when it came to their shortcomings. It’s not a part of my past that I am particularly proud of in that regard.
Personality cults are just as much a threat to society as partisanship is – maybe if we are all able to reflect on our actions and loyalties (and the actions of those we are loyal to) we can begin to root out the cults that lead us. In my experience, the centers of personality cults are, at best, fallible men, and at worst, manipulative charlatans obsessed with gaining power over you. I hope that the Cult of Trump begins to dissolve before the next election (and that other personalities will not rise to take his place). If we’re going to live in a democratic republic, I’d rather live in one where leaders were chosen based on their character and proposals, rather than simply their persona.
First, I want to say thank you to everyone who read (and especially those who purchased) Issue I of WAL Reader. I truly hoped all of you enjoyed it and/or learned something valuable from it – I know that everyone who contributed to the inaugural issue put a lot of work into it.
We’re back! As happy as I was with our first issue, I really think Issue II has raised the bar even more. Thank you for taking the time to check out our magazine – I think the main focus of “immigration” is especially important right now.
Secondly, of course, I want to thank all of you who are now reading the second issue (and again, a special thank you to those of you who purchased it in one form or another). I am extremely proud to be putting out the magazine you’re now holding or looking at on a screen. While I think the first issue was a great success, I believe this second issue has raised the bar.
I am thrilled with the variety of subjects covered in this issue – contributors to this issue talk about the death penalty, universal basic income, the importance of family, reparations, and more. I’m excited that the variety of the magazine’s content is continuing to expand and stretch.
Of course, as you can likely tell from the cover and table of contents, the primary focus of this issue is immigration, one of the most contentious issues among Americans and libertarians. Several talented writers have contributed articles about immigration from a variety of viewpoints about the issue (including positions ranging from open borders to strict border control). I think anyone can find something in this section that they agree with, something that will challenge them, and (undoubtedly) something that will irk them. That’s good, that’s what I want to happen. There’s a bit of fun in being irksome every once in awhile.
My Quick Thoughts on Immigration
Personally, I support open borders, seeing as how I refuse to support violence against non-violent people doing nothing more than crossing an imaginary line drawn up by an imperialist federal government in the 1800s. I believe that cultural diversity (just like intellectual diversity) is a great, great thing – no single culture is superior to others in all (or even most) aspects and all cultures have something to gain from one another. I utterly reject the sense of “Western supremacy” that is present in so many American political ideologies. That being said, I’m not foolish enough to believe that cultural mixing never leads to cultural clashes. Obviously not all aspects of every culture are compatible, but I believe that most of those difference can be resolved peacefully and without government, if the populace is willing to put in the work required for peace.
Furthermore, I believe that immigration is a boon for the economy, on the local, regional, and state levels. More individuals means more potential for innovation, contribution, and consumption; I know that potential is not always realized, but it’s still there and worth building up. It makes sense to me that workers from less-developed areas of the globe will be more willing to work the important jobs in America that an increasingly privileged populace is unwilling to. That being said, I’m not naive enough to believe that immigration will never lead to temporary displacement of blue-collar workers or that capitalist employers will never take advantage of immigrant labor in extremely exploitive ways. But I also do not believe that those unfortunate realities can be solved by government border control and economic protectionism.
Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Valeria drowned in June, 2019 while attempting to cross into the United States. Desperate to better his daughter’s life, Óscar attempted to enter the country illegally after their asylum request was rejected. (Photo from North Texas Dream Team)
Lastly on immigration, I want to utterly denounce the concentration camps that the government is currently running on the Southern border and the gestapo-esque ICE raids on non-violent people throughout the country. The Trump administration’s actions towards migrants is disgusting and I would feel morally-bankrupt if I didn’t use my platform to say so. It’s disgusting how many people believe that migrant children in DHS’s custody do not deserve soap, blankets, or basic childcare. It’s cruel to mock the struggle of migrants trying desperately to better their situations. It’s absurd to support Trump’s desire to force asylum-seekers to wait in the dangerous situations they are attempting to escape from.
For that reason, this issue of WAL Reader is dedicated to Óscar Alberto Martínez Ramírez and his daughter, Valeria, who drowned in the Rio Grande river while trying to enter the U.S. after their asylum request was denied. An awful picture of their bodies has been circulated in the media recently and was even mentioned during the first Democratic 2020 primary debate. The image on page 6 is Óscar and Valeria as I imagine their family would like them to be remembered.
Like I said at the beginning of this letter, I was very pleased with the first issue of WAL Reader and for the most part, I was very pleased with the feedback I received. By and large, our readers seemed happy with We Are Libertarians’ newest deliverable. However, I was not at all happy with the response to one of the articles in particular (if you follow WAL Reader on Facebook, you likely know which article I’m talking about).
For Issue I, Kenton Merrill wrote a thoughtful and well-researched article on the history of and in favor of the libertarian-socialist ideology. This was one of my favorite articles in the issue because it did challenge so many ideas that I have taken for granted before, it made me think a whole awful lot. Personally, I think thinking’s a good thing.
I guess a lot of libertarians didn’t want to be challenged though. Several individuals and groups not only denounced the article, but the entire magazine and We Are Libertarians network, claiming that we were all “commies”. What a bogus, hilariously-idiotic claim.
Let me be clear: if you are the type of person to launch personal, ad hom attacks against someone due solely to a disagreement on theoretical societal models, WAL Reader doesn’t need your readership or involvement. Unlike many political and libertarian outlets, WAL Reader (and We Are Libertarians in general) does not pride itself in being an echo chamber; in fact, we pride ourselves in exactly the opposite. If an echo chamber is what you’re looking for I can suggest a few other outlets, groups, and caucuses that might be better suited to your tastes (I won’t name those here).
Now that that messy bit of housekeeping is out of the way, I hope you all enjoy Issue II of WAL Reader. Again, all I ask is that you read through the following pages with an open mind. I want to thank all the writers who contributed to this issue, as well as Donald Keller for designing this issue’s cover. And of course, to Chris Spangle for starting, growing, and sharing the We Are Libertarians label.
If you want to check out Issue II (which I highly recommend), you can do so here.