Democrats and Republicans, by way of affiliation and membership, are asked very little except to be not the other guy. It doesn’t really seem to be much of a party platform when the best you can say is I ain’t him. When we look at Brion McClanohan’s work and think about the founders we learned that, instead of a two party system, we had a system of factions. Each faction centered around one of the founders. So we had the Hamiltonians and Jeffersonians and the Washingtonians and the Madisonians and the Monroevians and as certain factions withered away, the constituent members of those factions chose the next best prospect. So, we had an increase in constituent size of popular factions and a decrease in faction quantity. There is some seeming correlation to the more members a faction had the fewer novel ideas created by that faction. There seems a correlation between more minds and fewer good ideas. So, to jump ahead, we go from factions to our current day political process and it is a very windy road indeed. And, here we are again and the best I can say is I ain’t him.
There is a stunning lack of character or identity of policy or purpose or plan from either party except, it seems, that the democrats are hell bent on becoming socialist and the republicans are hell bent on carrying the baggage. There is very little that is liberating about a party that wants everything for free and for all of the rich people to pay for it and a party that says “Hey! Well, it’s that way” When we look at a party based on liberty, and liberty is defined simply as freedom from coercion, there is a clear difference between a libertarian and a Republicrat. R and D are becoming increasingly the same and all that they really have in common is they don’t gife a hoot about liberty.
To consider one of the really important aspects of political affiliation is to consider what does that party ask of its membership? Specifically, what does it ask them to sacrifice? To my observation we are back to the same one thing that defines and designates one from the other and that is we are not them.
Libertarians are self-identified. I was drawn by the intellectual discussions about the connection between economics and politics. I read parts of Hazlitt and Hayek. I was enjoying the education and information but was not invested in my choice. I was happily “not them,” but for me, it was both of them.
I recently listened to a “Battle for Liberty” podcast by Mike Tilden which discussed intellectual property. The idea that we do not have a right to our intellectual property flies in the face of what nearly all of us consider correct and proper about the creations of the minds of musicians and authors and artists. The argument made by Tilden is his own, supported by a recent book Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella. Tilden’s discussion begins with the end of the argument. Basically, it is this: If I create a formula for a cure to a disease, then I have a monopoly on that list of ingredients. As a monopoly holder, I determine who can or cannot use that same list and what damages might come from the unauthorized use. The argument for writers is that once the work of writing is purchased, that is now the possession of the buyer. Surely no one would claim harm to the author should the book be burned. It is your book. You, the buyer, purchased the book and now it is yours to do with as you wish. There be weeds between here and where photocopying or scanning and publishing on line that same book will lead. That is worth a conversation but beyond my point, which is this: I was unsettled by that idea. I listened repeatedly and still questioned the notion. My quest for affiliation as a libertarian demands I examine some of my formerly held beliefs to learn if I am thinking in a libertarian mindset. Do I understand the world from a libertarian perspective? That was my moment of commitment. To claim the label of libertarian, I at least needed to think through this challenging idea. I’m not fully on board, but I’ve skin in the game. It was easy to go along with the non-aggression principle and property rights. Don’t hurt people or take their stuff. Easy peasy. Until an idea challenges your positions, that kind of thinking is just following.
First, property rights dictate that I own me and my ideas and the property of the items I produce. The notion that I have no claim to the words on the page in a book after it is sold was a tough nugget to chew on. I hold this feeling that authors deserve their pay for the books they write. I hold a reverence for knowledge for its own sake. Reverence means respect for the author and the words and works. Respect is paying for that work. That’s the price of admission. Buy the book. I was on board with buying the book. What was a challenge was to rethink my previously held beliefs. Questioning our positions is hard. Self examination may be one of the most challenging tasks we know mostly for the fear of finding out the answer. The risk, of course, is not finding that we do believe as we think, but that we don’t.
Affiliation from the masses of Republicans and Democrats seems to require next to no call to self examination. I see no real effort to from either party’s ranks to defend that membership. The best that is offered is a form of tribalism. My dad or mom or grandparents were of the same party, so clearly so must I be. That sounds a lot like, Hey! I ain’t him! To yield thoughtful consideration as to party membership, and to avoid asking what has the party done to increase liberty. It seems pretty clear that neither party is particularly interested in advancing liberty, but is interested in keeping the status quo. Membership may not have much to offer. Neither party seems all that interested in the rank and file living examined lives. If the party of your affiliation doesn’t want you to grow and learn, what do they want of you? Why are you involved in a group which seems to have no interest in your intellectual growth?
