My good friend Alex Singleton’s liberty loving credentials are impeccable… he was the founder and driving force behind the St. Andrews Liberty Club blog in fact. Thus I never dismiss his views out hand and I certainly understand the points he makes in his most recent article on Samizdata.net.
I would of course be delighted to see the major political parties start being influenced by libertarian ideas. However the basic thrust of Alex’s views must be predicated on the notion that some sort of Perestroika with the system of party politics under which we are governed is actually possible, which is to say, the system can reform itself and kick the habit of tax addicted encroaching regulatory gradualism and ever more force mandated political interaction replacing the very notion there is something called civil society and non-force mandated social interaction. I do not think any such Perestroika is possible from within the system. As a result, I pin much of my hope of the trend across much of the western world of decreasing voting numbers and think it is indeed possible in the long run to delegitimise the whole notion of democratically sanctified kleptomania and its corrosive effects on civil society. I am, in short, anti-political.
Does that mean I am indifferent to Party Politics completely? Alas no… I too have to live in the here and now world and certainly we do not have the luxury of just standing by when dire things are happening. Matters such as the war against Ba’athist Iraq and events like the current power grab by the €uro-political tranzi elite force folks like me to take an interest in the foetid waters establish politics… but I try to never loose sight of the fact party politics is inherently corrupting. It does not matter how much you are in the side of the Angels, to become truly successful in democratic party politics requires you to become a whore-for-hire and to constantly feed the vast kleptocratic machine or be devoured by it.
So if you want to join a party and try to nudge them in the direction of respecting individual liberty, well God bless you. I wish you well and will certainly count you as a fellow traveller of mine even if I do worry that you may be legitimising the very process which is the root of the problem. However I will never embrace or respect any political party myself and I sure as hell will never join one. My object is get as many people as possible to, as Apple Computers likes to say, “Think Different”.
The way I characterize my own (admittedly still developing) political ideas is as a dichotomy.
There’s the way I wish things could be, the way they’d be if I could design a society, culture, economy, and government from the ground up this morning. This would of course look radically different than anything that has ever existed anywhere in history.
Then there’s the way I usually think about things, which is in terms of the reality of the US (er, Anglosphere) in 2003. I accept a lot of ugly truths in viewing the world through this reality–truths like the fact that the Republicans and Democrats aren’t going to go away in my lifetime, or the fact that socialized medicine is coming whether I like it or not. This is the lens I use to evaluate the news and opinions I’m fed every day. It’s why I vote, write letters, and try to convince people I know of what I think.
The second couldn’t exist without the first, but the first is pretty much useless by itself, at least as far as I can tell.
If you spend your time trying to concentrate on radical revolution, don’t you miss out on the little things that could make a difference while ultimately pursuing a line of activism and persuasion that is, sad to say, presumably doomed to failure?
For example, if the city’s proposing a new tax for such and such a social program, but you’re opposed to the fundamental *idea* of all taxes in the first place, and therefore excuse yourself from appearances at council meetings, letter writings, and referendum votes, and the tax passes, wouldn’t it have been more productive to participate in the political process and possibly make a difference?
Well, participation in political *parties* is just one way, in the real world, that ordinary humans can attempt to influence the “body politic.” It doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve sold out your ideaology, just that you’ve accepted you have to work within a system that is about five billion times larger and more momentous than you are.
I find both political parties pretty equally awful at the moment, and neither of them are remotely in favour of what I would describe as my number one political aim – which is a dramatic decrease in the size of government. But, as I have been saying on the White Rose, I think it is possible that we can get the Tories to promise that they will not introduce an ID card. If they do that, and the choice is that or a Labour government that will force me to carry such a card, then I will go and vote for the Tories, however much I otherwise dislike them.
Michael how is it that you are able to vote in UK elections?
Of couse, Apple is a statist instution, supporting anti-trust and having Gore on its board.
(No, I’m not being entirely serious…)
Citizens of Commonwealth countries who live in the UK have full voting rights.
My best argument with the “progressives” is: ‘Would you put a gun to some one’s head to get what you want? Is putting a gun to some one’s head progressive?’
After they come up with the “progressive” answer, you then ask the question about using proxies. Working your way to government.
When they finally come round and say ‘yes, but it is so hard to accomplish voluntarily’ your reply is simply ‘yes’. Then you go on to explain how theft always seems easier than working for what you want. However, in the end the results are more secure.
Now don’t expect an immediate transformation. There will be the tendency to revert to old patterns. You have to give the acid time to work, along with the occasional reinforcing reminders.
Alex
You should be serious. Apple wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the US goverment.
Eamon Brennan
Eamonn: What’s your argument behind that?
He’s probably referring to all the tens of thousands of Apple computers bought by public schools back in the day.
Who cares about Apple? The quote he used of the Apple slogan clearly had nothing to do with Apple, he was just making a point.
Alex
The whole anti-trust case changed Microsofts view of Apple drastically.
Previously the platform was seen as an irrelevance due to its small market share. after the case began Microsoft began to actively support the apple OS as part of its case. Because of this Microsoft dropped its plans to cease producing office/explorer/outlook for the Mac OS. I’ll admit that claiming that Apple going out of business is extreme, but losing Microsoft as a developer would have damaged the platform immeasurably.
Speaking as someone who has an office full of Macs and PCs running OS 9, OSX, XP, 2000 and 98, I have to to say that I am very glad that they did.
Eamon Brennan
Perry, What would your meme for thinking different be?
The problem with partaking in the politcal process is one of guns.
Though 90% of the public at large doesn’t realize it, all political issues are questions about the use of guns. Ideally, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, the sole purpose of the political machinery would be to use those guns to prevent aggression against individuals’ life, liberty, and property. However, giving such a power of defense to a monopoly inevitably leads to said monopoly going on offense.
Today, the political process is mostly about going on the offensive and using the machinery to violate each others’ life, liberty, and property. Although it is dressed up in campaign slogans, conventions, banners, ‘civic duty’, and vote buttons, make no mistake – the political process is a low-level war of man against man. It is the Hobbesian jungle ironically come to life through the Leviathan state.
To those of us who value individualism, it is not only distasteful to partake in the political process, but also futile. The very essense of politics is collectivism, and thus we are left with trying to achieve individualism through collectivism. It ain’t gonna work folks.
There is a tendency to believe that everything is very bleak all around because there are always plenty of problems and, seemingly, few solutions. There was an apocryphal anecdote that passed around several years ago in which some Egyptian from 3000 BCE wrote a letter complaining that the kids nowdays are terrible and the economy is collapsing, etc.
Personally, it seemed in the late 1960’s and 1970’s that the US and the West were really in trouble, and then, by 1990, the “Evil Empire” that had caused us all to hide under our desks in grade school for fear of nuclear attack was gone. Yet, if you go back to the mid-80’s, no one was predicting this would happen, and the political infighting and general moaning and groaning was roaring right along.
I make it a point to find someone to vote for in every election, whether school board, primary, state, or federal. I can usually find a couple, even though I might not agree with them on every issue. The key issue to me is—does the person think rationally about the problems facing ordinary people? I then can feel comfortable voting for the person, not as someone who will always do just what I want, but as a representative who will approach things in a responsible way.
I always take my kids with me when I vote, and I talk it up that this is something that a person must do as a responsible citizen. It is not necessary to find perfection in a candidate. An ordinary, decent, working person will do. They are there if one looks past all the lawyers and other hangers on.
Sometimes out of 20-30 races, I will only vote for 3 or 4. But then I get my red sticker, reaffirm that I live here as a free man, and I get to bitch mightily until the neaxt election about what a hash they’re making of everything. Not a bad return for a few minutes invested.
Not to read too much into an offhand quip, but it’s ironic that Perry quotes Apple in his defense of Total Ideological Purity.
Apple grew from a culture of the rudest pragmatism and feverish cross-pollination (Homebrew Computer Club). Its single greatest innovation (Macintosh) was the crafty reallocation (some say theft) of someone else’s brilliant idea (Alto) that had languished unappreciated in an ivory tower of surpassing purity (PARC).
Apple furiously mixed genes with compatible Others, and its hybrid vigor carried it a long way — until an even stronger hybrid outbred it.
Any lessons for libertarians? As much as I admire the “Keepers of the Sacred Flame” types and value their contributions as educators, influencers and evangelists, I think it’s clear that Total Ideological Purity, like Total Genetic Purity, is a dead-end. Survival demands that you hybridize.
I wish The Keepers well, alone in their redoubts stocked with guns and peanut butter and well-worn Rand volumes, but I plan to be celebrating victory with the other Mutts.
Bac2cali and others here who cite Apple’s history should bear in mind that their traditionally strongest maket segment, education, is as statist and political an industry as exists in America today. Apple actively lobbied for tax incentive legislation that would allow it to benefit financially from supplying deeply-discounted Apple gear to schools. It lobbied for legislation that would mandate and/or fund the deployment of computer gear in schools. It was very savvy in playing the political game to achieve unfair advantage. Far from “thinking different,” this was the same old government vendors’ game, made virtuous in the media because of Apple’s alleged “commitment” to the children.
Apple’s success is similar to that of the Democratic Party here in the US: they both talk a good game about compassion and empowerment; they’re big on populist image. But any benefits that supporters accrue from these two organizations are too few, and come at too high a price, I think.
Someone else here mentioned that Gore is on the Apple board, now. To me, it is hilarious, that the company that won’t bother to disabuse people of the useful myth that “Steve Jobs invented the personal computer,” now has a Director on the board who won’t bother to disabuse people of the useful myth that said Director “invented the internet.” Both men’s contributions in the respective arenas were noteworthy, to be sure. So I wonder why they don’t set the record straight more often; they have nothing to lose, and a reputation for honesty and relative modesty to gain. Wow, politicians and high-tech cowboys being known for honesty and even a hint of modesty? Now THAT would certainly be “thinking different.”
There are other reasons to join a political party besides supporting their platform and ideals. Here in dear old Wyoming the GOP is so very dominant that the officeholder is often chosen not in the general election, but in the Republican primary, and only registered party members may vote in the primaries.
Likewise, politicians who wish to actually win an election run as Republicans regardless of their personal views. This can lead to some odd situations, such as our last election for county prosecutor, in which two of the most socially liberal folks I know ran against each other in the Republican primary. Yet, even the most diehard social conservatives gritted their teeth and voted for one or the other of them because to vote for the hated Democrats would have been unthinkable.
Jonathan Wilde,
You are right and you are wrong to say that politics is about collectivism and, therefore, antithetical to individualism. Obviously, party politics is collectivist by necessity. But its actions can nonetheless tend to the collective or the individualist. It’s simply that individualism is not a vehicle for political action, quite the contrary.
Politics exists and collective solutions will be pursued unless people like you and I join in and fight for what we believe.
Alas, my heart sank after seeing the great Samizdata contribute to one of the most insidious memes ever to come from the People’s Republic of California.
It’s supposed to be ‘Think DifferentLY‘.
Two points off for grammar.