STRATEGY May Day 1981 $29 95 CONTENTS Critiques of the New Libertarian Manifesto by Dr. MURRAY N. ROTHBARD PAGE3 ROBERT LEFEVRE use 20 Erwin (Filthy Pierre) Strauss 31 with replies by the author of NLM, Samuel Edward Konkin 1 Published annualry by the Memes of the Nil-nee Strategy oftt?le New Libertarian Alliance #1 198] Introductlon by Samuel Edward Rankin Continental Strategist LA Welcome to the first theoretical journal of New Libertarianism. There have been several attempts to publish a journal of libertarian theory??notably Libertarian Analysis and none survived. There are many publications today which are academic career-saners. or watered-down 'economics for the newcomers. or general interest publications. occasionally perceptive and penetrating. but still primarily entertainment. All serve their market purpose or they would not be. Libertarianism is. perhaps. too diverse and pluralist to produce the kinds of journals abounding on Left and Right with a full speci?ed theoretical 'l'ramework. adjusting as empirical evidence warrants. but mainly analyzing events and competin ideologies for the purpose of mapping out a strategy for the activist. cadre. cc 1 members. or entrepreneur. Libertarianism says too little (but correctly) about too many. It defines who are accepted in the society (and who are not} but not who are making that society and who effectively oppose it. New Libertarianism applies a lens. narrowing and even distortin . to antici ate criticism. but/arming. And many libertarian activists have felt that need or focus in recent years and the all of false paths they know will not lead to Liberty but to Power?yet provide lichens and direction. The New Libertarian Manifesto was the ?rst document to take libertarianism as a given and develop a strategy that it claimed derived from the constraints and insi of libertarianism. As such it contained the weakness of not having earlier. failed examples to build on and refine from. With that in mind, the Nucleus of the New Libertarian Alliance requested criticism from the major poles of libertarian thought. hoping that the cross?re would weed out the errors and shake down the framework. The poles. as the author sees it. are most ably re resented by Murray Rothbard. Robert LeFevre. Roy (lhilds. Robert Poole, ?Filt Pierre" (of the Libertarian Connection) or Erwin S. Strauss, and Andrew Galainbos. All of these are poles or nuclei of orbits of thou ht and generally accepted as fairly distinct. (Eagattibos refuses to talk to anyone else in the movement. so it was no surprise to receive his non-recognition. Signi?cantly, that is the appropriate (ialamb0_ sian response and so we have it. (Lhilds, the court intellectual of the Charles Koch?owned faction of anarchocentrists. refused to reply directly but sent back second-hand dark mutterings of an unforgotten slight he had received from author years ago in New Libertarian ll?rekly. This putting personality over principle is the response of the "Kochtopus." then. and is accepted as their apt reply to NLM. Poole actually replied to an invitation to critique NLM and said he'd find someone around the office who might want to do it. The Reason bureau cracy failed to disgorge anything by press time (after several months? warning), and, one supposes. that is their appropriate response. to NLM. 2 Strategy afthe New Libertarian Alliance #1 the "top nl the Movement" did reph. Murray. RUIllharcl pInvI-Il again that he is never Inn elevated to stoop In principle. nor. as he lH lilsl lunluolc. u'nuld he let even personal deter him. he sanu' spun and idenlngital nnhilitv is deeniahle to Robert LeFevre. l-?ilthv l'u-Iie. Illa- the author himself. has a good launish mentalm about ?loccmg? other pnhliialinus. he critiques of the New are printed in full; the It'sputtst's are not. Something had In gn the space requirements. Nonethe- less. the lens ol the views the as well?defended and, next Issue. Iu- hill move In the attack. nal \evv liliel I.u riticism and external criticism will never be closed. In the debate. if others wish. SNLA will inaugurate a Letters column smaller vae if it gets out of hand) nest issue- lI?I'I'ite lreelv! \Iul nest Strategy afthe New Libertarian Alliance Samuel Edward Ill and liliel and agnrist theorists (now being solicited) will lat Mr Hat um: and espei the l.eninisl model of Revolution and contrast it to the Nets Revolutionary Inntlel. (KIA will try to get a worthy nl a purist ?Left (Inununnisd group to participate.) (hie may lest-tu- .I cnpi. (clue ?as ?as V1.93. ll's Inn ls In guarantee set but undoubtedly it will carry respimses In the public aIinII nI Knukin's tliass-Iilat'ket follow-up to that is. (.?mmtm- {ammonia I. the bunk. \Iul incursions [Continued from page thirty-three] contributes at cordiuglv, we pass through the stages outlined in the Manifesto, the advantages become more tangible and obvious if more diffuse. but I do point out that agnrist Rat-l) will he transferred to specific industries for their profit and or reduction of cost?especially insurance and protection. Where l?iet're sees various degrees of "altruism," I see short?term. medium- range and long-range investment in improving one's surrounding environment ?in\estlueuls Iv (In not clash but are complementary to one's investment in personal freedom and safetv. I could care less about ?genetic altruism" and its indulgence. l?iet?l'e does put his linger on the semantic static generated by using terms evolved in politics for the purpose of agnrist activism and I hope to see him further working with New Libertarians on developing alternative, clearer labels and populari/ing them. (My well-known proclivity for neologizing?coining new prompted precisely to achieve that semantic clarity and free our language of inappropriate associations.) he general spread and marketing of weapons of mass destruction may well be turning but I fail to see how it will have the critical effect of abolishing the State. l-urlher debate on this question {opened in New Libertarian Weekly) may be warranted. ??-Samuel Edward Konkin 111, May Day, Strategy of the ew Libertarian Alliance #1 198] Konkin On Libertarian Strategy by Murray N. Rothbard, It is good to have the New Libertarian .ltaai/esta in more or less systematic form for assessment and criticism. L'ntil now. the lionkinian vision has only been expressed in scattered pot-shots at his opponents, often me.* It turns out that Sam Konkin's situation is in many ways like the Marxistsalust as the Marxists are far more cogent itt their criticisms of existing society than in setting forth their vaporous and rather absurd vision of the communist future. so Konkin is far more coherent in his criticisms of the existing libertarian tnovement than in outlining his own positive agoric vision. This of course is not an accident. For one thin . it is far easier to discover flaws in existing institutions than to offer a cogent a ternative. and secondly it is tactically tnore comfortable to be on the attack. I. The Konkinian Alternative In this particular case. lionkin is trying to cope with the challenge I laid down years ago to the anti-party libertarians: what is your strategy for the victory of liberty? I believe Konkin's agorism to be a total failure. but at least he has tried. which is to his credit. and puts him in a class ahead of his anti-party conl'reres. who usually fall back on fasting. prayer, or each one ?nding ways to become a better and more peaceful person. none of which even begins to answer the problem of State power. and what to do about it. So before I comment on Konkin's criticisms ofcurrent libertarian institutions. I would like to take up his agoric alternative. First. there is a fatal flaw which not only vitiates Konlun's agoric strategy but also )ermits him to evade the whole problem of organization (see below). This is Ron in's astonishing view that working for wages is somehow non-market or anti?libertarian. and would disappear in a free society. Konkin claims to be an Austrian free-market economist. and how he can say that a voluntary sale of one's labor for money is somehow illegitimate or unlihertarian passeth understanding. Furthermore. it is simply absurd [or him to think that in the free market of the future. wage-labor will disappear. Independent contracting, as lovable as some might see it. is simply grossly unecononuc for manufacturing activitv. The transactions costs would be far too high. It is absurd. for example. to think of automobile manufacturing conducted by self-employed independent contractors. Furthermore, Konltin is clearly unfamiliar with the fact that the (Me of his page 3) is untrue as well as insulting. Neither I nor the Libertarian Farm? was ex er in any sense "bought" or ml!" by (Iharles Koch. l'he Lilmtariaa Forum has never had a penny from outside sources; since its inception. it has been entirelv self-?nancing. .?tud while my on: war leave at the ('ato Institute ?as enjoyable in 'lnans ways. I lost rather than made money In the deal. 198] Strategyufthe New Libertarian Autum- I . an hn mam uagt-lalxil 1 In! Print *Ht?l . . ??111 ll [llLIt 1-. ?ng lleIL 11H- - II it: [Inn the Ial [llt?ll t'dl ll ?Ull?nt?l' "In: 1 - In pnuhaw tapnal and Une nl tr . ?it i hunt the elm-meme ut the Lawn lt?l?t? iN thath ?11H.??ld tn the tapitalhts. see lull. in his, ll? ?lini?mm-J- . 5- i hnnLin's lallat Inns and I taIIan It ]u 0 dlmt. hnts'et?er. him In (In st'tt'l al things. It ?1 lilmm'i?l? )ult'lltlal [It the lilat lust. ll .Il?wti .IllUllnl" h? l1??m?mm'?lttlul ln [mint nt lair. ('ten mung? the hlatk ?Hit-It'll nnpnitant In Ital). ete. it tlwalletl In the legal. wlnte Inarket. Sn the Knuhnian sisinn nt lilat L-InaILet (lt?lt'mhng thcul?fchg and thus humming the lIee-InaILt-t sntiets the {mate (?lining-5 {m this alnne _\nte that Ill.? kets .ne Inntentratetl elt?her In sertite intltistites nr are talnahle and eastlt tnnrealetl: jewels. {h ugs. antls hat s. Lings. In. lliis isall well and lint it still itlnes ?le the l" nhleIn: hn Ill Inal-a' steel. I'enlenl. Infra.? wnultl (fin, tale the hla: Let} I he answel is that [hes tlnn?t late at as thet tlnn't tare In the intlepentlenl agnra. [he pninl is that these latal gaps in the Knnkinian tisinn are linked tngetliel'. Ht tntnentrating nn nlijetls as Inalijtlana as his paradigm nl the agnta. rather than antninnhiles. steel. \?Inntlei Bread. nr whateter. Knnkin is ahle tn neglett the melwhelining lnIlL nl lite and In tnntentl'ate nn Inarginalia, )nh In this snit nl neglet't an he (?It'll begin In a of independent umttat [nus [11 a wnild nl hlat markets. And there is annther tital pnint here Inn. Kunkin's entire thenl'} speaks nnl} In the intel ests ant! (?Ht el ns nl the marginal I [asses are sell-etnp titted. gleat hulk til the penple are lull-time wage wnrkei s: [hex are people with stead}. {Ills}. has nnthinq wlratsnet er In sat tn these penple. in adttl?I 'ntrkin's strategt. then. nn [his alnne. sert a dead end the lihertarian tnntenient. We win if there is nn pnssihillitt' nl Speakmgm the tnnterns nl the great hulk nl wage earners in this and nther ll Is the same thing with tax rehellinti. which )restnnahh' serves as part Ul ll?? ?gm "i strategy. again. it is far easier snlneniie dnesn earn 3 wage 1? l3-?M1Pe the (If his inennie. It is itn )nssilrle [nr Biil?llf?'b. Whnse taxes are nl (nurse (letlurtetl till the by tile inlanmus wit1-. l1?l?l??l% UK- ?the again. it is tn rnnrert wage-wnrkers tn the ?l taxes lleuinse thet' literallt' hate Iin ellnire. linuknrs any dismissal nl taxatinn as being in some sense tnluntarr again ignnres the Pl'ghl ?It: tn.age-maner. I i dhaul. indeed. that there is nne war In eliminate the ?lm? Dill?: I speak its name? It is pulltt'tr'rtl ration. ailiullni ?ii? ll": entire Elle, . hii '3?:th tn ll'gilm- thenretlrians. are :liI-l-lm?iirl: in the In slit hlatk Inal [watts h? lihetn and ?m ii nst. nit they. lune nnIreletante tn tltf. tip!- le "light etenl . Is-t-t It .?state: lntleetl. a nl I 111'. If. I tire. It Is [Inssilile that the 5m 19! l? [runs blatk IIlttl'lit'Il ('lusit'elj.? sel: I well hene II n" struggle hand. the!? el. lnl' alliance #1 of poor as there was worker must of the great is that poor could be left tion" in his .vever. allows view of the us neglect of of fact. even y. etc.. it is ?ket. So the themselves collapses on ter in service concealed: rod. but it still fill. with? How are at ketl together. of the agora. kin is able to :icentrate on an: a world of eaks only hp oyed. The le with steady le. To adopt dead end for if speaking to ier countries. as part of the loesn't earn a ble for wage- Lfamous w1th~ to the idea of Konkin?s airy the plight of he monstrous black market Iusively self? well benellt at to" struggle ble hand. they ck market. lor Strategy ufthe New Libertarian Alliance #1 1981 5 example. is so productive that it keeps the entire monstrous Soviet regime alloat. and that without it the Soviet system would collapse. This does not mean, of course. that scorn or oppose black market activities in Russia; it is just to reveal some of the unpleasant features of the real world. 'There are other problems with the agoric concept. I tend to side with Mr. l?yro Egon in his dispute with Konkin; for the black market, if it develops at all. is going to develop on its own, and I see no role whatever for Mr. Konkin and the New Libertarian Alliance or the Movement of the Libertarian Left. Konkin speaks correctly of the division of labor. Well. nowhere does the division of labor manifest itself more clearly than in who succeeds in entrepreneurship. If the black market should develop. then the successful entrepreneurs are not going to be agoric tlieoreticiaits like Mr. Konkin but successful entrepreneurs period. What do they need with Konkin and his group? I suggest. nothing at all. There is a hint in the that libertarians would a priori make better entrepreneurs than anyone else because they are more trustworthy and more rational. but this piece of nonsense was exploded by hard experience a long time ago. Neither do the buddin black marketeers need Mr. Konkin and his colleagues to cheer them on ant tree them of guilt. Again. experience has shown that they do line on their own. and that urging them on to black market activities is like exhorting ducks to swim. When we consider. then. the vital importance of wageswork. black markets are already severely limited. and the agorist scenario for the ultimate libertarian goal falls apart. .Xnd then there is the final stage where black market agencies use force to defend illegal transactions. tax rebels. ctr- against the State. Although Konkin doesn't acknowledge it as such. this is violent revolution. and it is simply an historical truth without exception that no violent revolution has come close to succeeding in a democratic country with free elections. So that way is barred too. And it hasn?t succeeded all that often even in a dictatorship. The Soviet system has now been oppressing its citizens for over sixty years: and there has been a widespread black market all this time. And yet there is still the (iulag. Why hasn?t the black market developed into a Konkinian agora or even hinted at such? No. Much as I love the market. I refuse to believe that when 1 en . . . gage in a regular market transaction (raga buvtng a sandwich} or a black tn arket activity driving at (it) miles per hour) 1 advance one iota nearer the libertarian revolution. The black market is not going to be the path to liberty. and libertarian theoreticians and activists have no function in that market. I think this is why the only rm! activity of Mr. Konkin and his coll annoying members of the Libertarian Party. This hectoring may be bracing 1-01- the soul of some party members. but It scarcer serves to satisfy the lifelong commitment the Konknnans have to the cause of liberty. No. agorism is a dead end. and. to use an old Stalinist term, is ?objectively cttunterrevolutiotmrv.? eagues is confined to Ltbertart'an Allian #1 6 1981 trategy of the New II. The Problem of Organizatiem I turn now to Konkin's critique of the current libertm-i and other writings. fhere are three basic threads in ?nil-eh distinct. but which Konkin generally ronfuseg. the hiel?ill'fhl?i? organirtatio-n. the problem ofthe .. .. These are; the libertarian Partr. (-eneralljr. honkm lumps the confuses all these issues. must unpack themfor the sake of there is no Libertarian l?arti' 'tiil Irs?t simply.- other libertarian institutions. organizations. institute Ihd wltaterer. . them are is. magazmes. Ur \?t'ould Konkin's complaints disappear if the 1.1? collapsed? (Ileal-I}. ml there runs through his writings an attack. not only on hierarchical ""ganizatisr but on organization per am. He is against joint stock companies becau?- they an: organized hierarchically. and seems to be against all other ?gummy organizations for similar reasons. He not only opposes wages. he also wants individual alliances. and not organizations at all. First. there is nothing either tin-libertarian or tut-market about a roluntarr or anilation. whether joint-Stork or any other. People organize because the}; belliere the} can accomplish things more effectively that way than through independent contracting or (at her alliances. And so they can. So. 1) they are not immoral or unlibet tartan. and 2) they are the only war by which almost ant-thing can be accomplished. whether it is making automobiles or setting up lit-ttlgem? chess tournaments. Konkin's suggested lloatin affinity grou can rerjr little. and that when onlr a handful of peop are inrolrec . Burll a handful wish to ctmperate on joint tasks. whether steel-making 01? (hm tournaments. an organization becomes necessary. Organizations of course create problems. and it is P?ml?l'355- [$1511.31] about them. If more than three or four people wish to engage "1 then some people will orerride the wishes of others Shul?l?l ?ll-El? tights. office blue or bei and there are bound to be power test. and all the rest. .ren corporations, which bare to meet lion-Pm? hare these problems. and the difficulties are bound to ?sin organiza- where there is no instant profit-andvloss We} ttonsg create problelns, SO wha? Sn (IUCS life hilt-?fl; 1;;th relationships or whatever. Most people think the drawbacks ill are more than compensated hr the benefits -nol1- . . Ur goals. Bl" ll HUI. they can alwars drop out and not i? an {lit hel't? alwl" art? 3? like to a lree S?Kl?ll they hare that privilege. And of course. -s toluntarr Ul?g?dnizations. 1 suspect 3m; Konkin and his sg"?l join So be it. But those of us who wish to acct?11911333?lith? to ll? will continue to do so. And it seems to me we itrt? al al mIknu'?lc'illgt'?lent that there is nothing in the slighw? mil these a" all?" hiet'art'ln. leaders and followers. m. so. long :?eriall 1iliel?f?m? toluntarilr- If the Emittiniung fail to acknowledge this [32:11? ILInt-strut" - . . . . sel' their ltlx'rtarian harm [tries would ?it? Strafpgy o] the New Libertarian Alliance #1 198] Ill. The Problem of the ?Koehtopus" Koch. not only [or Konltitt has also railed against the lienelitem ol (Lhat le "monopoly" ol the being pio?ll?. lint ut'm hetauw he has tended to attpiire a mott'Tltt?ltt. Still .titsltai ting:I the let its begin by each one ol us oursehes itt Koch's plate. ?i'on. say. are a tnti[ti-millionaire. and you get comerted to lihet?lat'ianistn. You're all estited about it. and you want to do somethingr to adtante the cause. lhings being what they are. tlte main thing you cart ?that should you do} The trouble with askingr us to tontrihute is your imagination is that most of us can't cottceiye ol ottrselyes as trial-u: this att ol? Itiulti-Inillionaiies. and too matty of us hate absorbed tlte primitive populist as etil l-n Manchu haratteis bent on exploitation. But let?s Konkin malty say that he of the Ittoyement} that money is tit-w ol millionaires take tlte case ol out comert. \?i'ould should do nothing. because this might create a "monopoly" Do we rm! want to tontert muIii-millionaires. do we not think adiancing tlte tnotentent? So it is surely grotesque to send our intportant Ling. ()btiously, we should welcome his contributions to multi-millionaire pac aitd hope for as mm as possible. (Hi, so you are a multi-millionaire the cause libet'tarianism. 'l'o whotn or what should you giye your money} Now. comert to tltis is a tonsitlerable responsibility. and since no one can be omniscient our Itlulti-tnillionaire is bound to make mistakes along the wayhim-?or ourseltes?is to do the best he can. according to his knowledge. l'he mulli-ntillionaire tlteretore deset'tes our approbation, our to the anse. Instead. what he ineyitably gets?human nature being what it is?wwill he altd attacks without cease(people or institutions) ret his largesse. this ineyitably leayes 1). 1i. and out in the cold. altd whether through ettyy andx'or righteous indignation at the wrong path taken. 1). li. and will no doubt yell bloody nmrder. l'o us poor folk it might seem absurd to say that the life ol?a multi-millionaire is hard and thankless. but it seems clear that this is an important point for us to remember. But there is more to be said. The critics of the inulti-millionaire might say: U.K.. it's great that he's git ing all that money to the cause. but why does he hate to control eyerything? But here again. you are the and you want to do the best you tan [or liberty with the money you giye out. Wouldn't yott want to has control ox er how your own money is spent} Hell yes. ?i'ou'd hate to be an idiot not to. and also not rare too touch either about money or the libertarian cause. [here are lew ntulti-tnillionaires who are idiots. But how about the Kochian "monopoly?" llet?e Mr. Konkin should haye lallen back on his .?tnsti iati s. Suppose that only one lirm is producing aluminum. Should we start yelling at it for being a ?monopoly,? or should 3 [98 1 Strategy of the New Libertarian Ian.hi! lin. iluln? [in mun ?Ill . mu. ?1mtiming. liit' (Untmnmllili In and gin in}; ?mum ?Hin- mm Ilul in lt?T' ?mild m- Fm [hill ??iimi?n In this ?lilui {hm-n mun.- [Ilu-imi mm: Ii p, ?Mail lulLuinm in put lilt? lilium- nn Iln' inimupi?i'?l .hh wulnnil that Hunkin hm. lit-r? nniun Km} ?It'unl nl km IH nul [his Hi ?It. him Iilulnhu hill it th- ?d'id ?Hing inn; Hillnn pm'lht'tliu?. ll IH pt'i?tt'illfs ?It" {'Ei?xlt?lltt? n1 Kmi in {hr lulu. In I i In KnnLin's limunt-i. inu- inn Iii-:- [he i'mt?ipi .1 gram ml the hiking mi 4 Inh uni: Fm ll ti?l Ii pm if; taking an} ?lthiltl's juh kun u. But h'lliit? Il?lcrp is nutinng in all nninin .il in Ii gnnimlr .ihnln 1 Km. hi.1n mnnupuh in this ilm-s pint: glau- mi inlngu i'in' ii um- mun organization inmiliinu tin- inn. Illihlilkt' ni itit'ning}. N'Ildit'g?iu, ?uni? 1H. gnu:- HillSt?tlHt?llLt?h In! this mini.- km h'H lir- u; I that hil?lJih in tilt iLuv-'dilbl'ki- Xi?lt?lli pi Uilit?tlin, il nun link will [mu- ;1 mull mgunimlinn makml. Illisl'lkt' him't'H?I. tin: ailt' nut ~11 {aim-tin? unlin- ix mil bl: In whitiimlingit pm lieuplc like Kath. (Hindi. Kunkin'x ~.inliilinn ul Hinh ilimppuning imm the libertarian stunt ix ;1 "u-im-(lx ?imit- than {IN-mini ihmmh thingr I run lhink ml is wing [n pcnmulv Ixml: in xvi-up (inim- .nul ilixiiuninna in this min iniuii mi mi11114223121?:j?l?laltixig: (mink-ting nmiil uninn tin-n mm g.nm.simn.i a i {Iii?il? in {i?IIlt . b] ?g I I IV. The Problem of the Libertarian Party auaclts?? Much of the Honkinian i'rilique of the LP all these urganizaliun and on [Mr and. I think I innit :i'm Iminglhi" iht'st' tritic'isms are either fullmiuug m' Illish [his tninn EH . "91"?th mingi ill institutions are \nlurnuri. and lift In'nhh-im til; Fr: imiin?imis are least to {huge pill?li( ipult.? in [ht'lIL Hi I unlibertarian. and the ullits they bring in tlu'll' ??ilk? life. Strategy the New Libertarian Alliance #l 1981 9 he [it] it to lionkin's hit:- man. the libertarian l?atty. lhete are two important questions to be resolved about the is it evil pm- and (2) assuming that it isn't. is it a legitimate or even necessary strategy for libertarians to adopt? I am going to lot the moment that a libertarian political party tor lot that matter. other forms of political action. sut ll as lobbying} ate an! evil per ve. llut if that is true. then all of lsonkin's running arguments about the l.l"s hierarchical nature. its power struggles. faction lighting. m. are no more than the problems inherent in all organizations whatever. And this we have already disposed of. More important. I see no other conceitable strategy for tlte achievement of liberty than political action. Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power. the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to giye it tip. Violent revolution will not work in a democratic political system. Konkinian agorism is no answer. as have shown above. Education in libetty is of course vital. but it is not enough: action must also be taken to roll back the state. speci?cally to repeal State laws. Like price control or the with- holding tat-t. (Jr even like marijuana laws. Despite their widespread non- enlorcement. there are always some people who get cracked down on. especially it the police wish to frame them for other reasons. 'l'ax rebels are admirable. but only in ?micro" terms; the taxes are still there. and the wage-earners pay thetn. 'las rebellion is ttot a strategy for victory. Single issue lobbying groups (rug. anti- dralt organixations. taxpayer organizations. gold standard groups. etc.) are fine and adtnirable. but they do not complete the job. For two basic reasons: becattse they are single-issue. and therefore cannot educate anyone itt libertarianism across the board. and because they cannot do the vital job of repealing the statist laws. They call only urge the repeal of the draft. for example; they can't actually do the repealing. Why should we cut ourselves off lrom this necesst-try and vital step of doing the repealing? Of course if one believes with Bob Lel?evre that it is equally immoral to repeal as to impose the draft. then the repeal of anything is out of the question. But I will shout ltosannahs for any repeal of statism. and do not concern tnyself with the "coercion" of those who'd like to keep the draft and are deprived of it. Before the existence of the LP. the only repealing could be done by Democrats and Republicans. and so libertarians engaged in this form of poitical action had to try to ?nd the tnore libertarian. or rather. the less anti?libertarian candidate. (Inntrary to Konkin. there haw been political parties in the past. especially the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that. while not anarchist. were admirable forces for laissez-faire. They didn't smash the State [not their intention anyway). they did accomplish an enormous amount for liberty. they ushered in the Industrial Revolution. and we are all itt their debt. I think ol the-Democratic Party in the the Liberals in England. the Progressives in Germany. etc. Historically. classical liberal political parties have accomplished far more for human liberty than any black markets. But empirically. of course. neither major party at this point is worth a damn. and so a Libertarian Party provides a welcome alternatiye. ol actually permitting us to engage itt libertarian political action. 10 1981 5??ng Nf?u' Libertarian lance .1 int-with mam h? . I titlt' thing uni-?mill tn nu nl tutti?, In I INHHIN .IN . dillitdl tn the Inn-b. {at ml with. Ihh hm. ilt't'll In ?it? [link ?1 mm? i5 t't ?1 than in .1 tin Ittn puhtti .tl put U- lilt' [hit ?my? Ihh mama lilt? n1 int [u I I Limit hunktiimn ?lithium, 1? g? 1hr tml' illtuhje . - . - It' tn that lilt' ?ppm ttinmit mil uni. din, tn [mil it um nut ruin he 11' hi .i tht' i5 ?with H. 't't'hit i-s win it Ht't'tiN tht- Raditul (L Ami whit it Iiik?l'ltllitllh Hit? in ?lm J- tlt't'.? tn Intlil?tlditl them. Unt- tiith [ilix litittit Uhtl deep it EMIH pit-tittitmrh: tht-I't- tu-H- t?llnugh tu'nutiti tti it and tn titt- tit-m a. Hit- Hit-u- like . tut- littittillt nu imtittitiitil: within the {t'ut?pt Im' R.uht.i (itiuum mg- . .tgml in aluminum in tlisutssiun til Inuit-s. Ihr IS an I Ilhlilmilltl JUIEUH. plinti {?itlh hit .111 itit?tiitigital path. tht'tt? I - I I of this Nlldi'lgt'?t puma-5 in Ill?itlt'H It Is an P?mmdl ?t i? mi illtt'l't'Hl iti itlt-uingt gent-rally tltitt't [Lil'lit'? in: .I lung tinw; tint, whith this strt-tigth kllilh'lt putt}. had {It} mt lutmutinn. and art ing tht: part1. i4. and m: htiu- tn timku (In with tu- .tl'th the; wig:- tti intuit tht- Ihtt htnt'. Fin [i'lt' Libertarian Filth is 1tit.t il Hill Hut- tn litmkiti'w suggt'atctl HE ti ti militant .mtl in tii ttittiti ti. illt? that ti'tittlti ilt' needed it. tht: will. .?Nu tilt-git hit liht-i tt 1 tin twirl-t. wt. till this pales the mint ti i.t t Putt} t-til {m w? it". Ilprt it"? My tithu't-I in nu. ht: httitt' In ;t .?hluhu II that llh. ttnti it he and ?tend? tn lutitlitin ii in: tt?i'ttst'tl it nut' utl'tl??i the huutti. tiutt't think I tun t'timmittingil?g?t'3?5im?he" I wall?; ;t gm ct'tiIthit-mhsitlin-tl re?ect. til'l?? '1 tutti sliihitii?? It It ?tut In tit-pulling atntiatti. .hitl II it? [Ilt' Luis titt-t'ttigltt. .?tll tl higlth'al?i. m- with! ht- pttl'Iit in tiggt union it I luhhiL-tl hit them: tti I didn't ask hit Illi?ht? and tltm?t tunstti?. mists? if mu Itit'tctl tn ttst: thmn. [it [ht saint- ?tit, ii'tlu- Mutt-i?; t't?ttmm til itr. tmtt. tillmu tn it purintiit Liltlill? ht?th't't'n mm" titin't IH-licu- tn: ill't' tiggt't-wn's il u'i: put tit in under tt: um: ?Imam?" "will; tit In in?: it] pvtiplt- in In; will .ti?lli?iil tit' H?pt?dl ?w HUB-5 ldtt. I thtit h't' that It It} It} tut: Ulti tht: liltht?. put it thi~ tun: 51ml?- mitts-illicit . mlh. that inr with: It'llhtill. t'tit .t whit? I . . . ?Mini-115(- it hill] Strategy af?ne New Libertarian Alliam'e #1 l98 I I It he es il. antl .s'ant [inning slayety. to iliate in sun a hone} Suppose one master has a monster who sy stetnatltally lot ttuetl all the slates, uhile the other one ?as enlortetl almost no trotk rules. lteetl one slate rt \(?rll . ltalt't ll seem to me not onhI not aggression to Htlt' lot the LiIHllt tnastt'l?. hut tl he lttiletl to do so. there might tyell he ll'( when lioth masters an; sittlilat?whete the slates uoultl he hettet oil not toting in order to make a yisihle protest?-hut this Isa tat [it al not a moral tonsitleratiou. Voting not he esil. hut in suth a tase less ellertiye than the protest. But it it is morally lit'it anti non-aggressire lor slates to sole [or a thoit of master s. in the same was it is lit it for to tote lor what we heliey the lesser oi ttso or more eyils. and still more henelitial to tote [or atmyetlly Iihettariall tantlitlates. ,\Iltl so there hate it. Konkinian strategy trintls tip being no strategy at all. Konkin ripples lihertarian el let tis eness hy treating moral problems it here none exist: in as nttun-liliertarian or non?market a whole slew of institutions net essary to the triumph o! liherty: organixation. hierarthy. uageM'ork. granting ol hy lihertariau millionaires. and a libertarian politit'al party. Konkin is what Used to he talletl a ?wretker?' let some institution or organization seem to he doing good work lor liberty somewhere. and Sam Konkin is sure to he in there with a moral attark. yet. Konkin's writings are to he trelt'ometl. Berause we need a lot more polytentrism in the ntoyement. Herause he shakes up l?artyart'hs who tend to unthinking rotnplatents. .?tntl espet'ially herause he tares deeply about liherty and tan ite. qualities tyhith seem to he going out ol style in the lihertarian mmement. .?tt least we ran tount on Islam Konkin not tojoin the Inintlless retins in the (ilark ials singing about New Beginning, .Xmer-i-t .\ntl that's worth a lot. Murray N. Rothbard, November 10, 1980 Reply to Rothbard by Konkin Murray N. Rothbard?s rigorous assault is refreshing: I?m not sure eren I would hare taken my first major theoretical attempt seriously if it had not eroketl Dr. Rothbartl at his trenrltant After all. Rothhartl and his neo-Romantir yiew of Ideas as almost (lashing super-heroes and yillains inspired and maintained many. if not most. of its libertarian aetirists. assuredly myself. Harini: [Jeen uttered a field of honour. Rothhartl throws the gauntlet tlotrn swil'tly: ?l heliere Konkin's agorism to he a total failure." From then on. it's hinge, parry and slash. IIHISI Sfr?h?gy uf?u? Nt'lt' Libe l2 Iillt? Iotitt. Rothhatd. alas. is {let ?lbdh ?In? ?Ml . . ism jut.? duuml'm I [gorisnt that it ts hart-It mentioned we [tritium mud in a I?lt'lgiit'htlliltilluitint .llutti/t'stn tfoot'tmhdie-?mg it ol ago: let point ?ltd": here Itetwt?t?ll Rotltbard [and loans. mamlm'11 I t- ion the ol tinted t? . . (an: i . I Illhl I tti rit. - l- - nestion ant II th II II llt?e [H?t'lt?jt't'ltlt'ifi?' til tl is lit l?l?lliit ?1 and nummnl? tinder attothet pe . . . Suppl . l1] ?llt'e ?Him? mt] and the put/:IttiJ-stiull (onh' the rarest art. it - I - . I'll\1 . 1 Il? tlte reward of eren low?leteI ?ll?H te.? . that a teal tlel to b- oneself out. I ll is Haring said that. it remains that tltis?d-elh' . t-alitlil?t' both am I would oi ol entrepreneurs of Rothbard flunk. prom). ?nding the origins of Mt that are made. out born. and not with that {the oi] Htll?tll?r'. But! retetis purifies. as tlte Maestro sass. and let its hold the entrepreneurs constant. How does tltat _lt ntak t'ontert libertarians to (and ought] to ltet'otne . . (George H. Smith has blazed trails .t erottotnit' philosopher?) But when we're tall-ting about libertarians {at present) to and lot (already plot en to has to libertariattistn. the loss ol a few tltous Moreox er. a degree oi oi erlap lug/t degree Again. in passing onlr. lttit'ett ate Is itt agree on thed would both de "let it ha Ilu- esitaltilitt site Ittoti- lilit'llu tt'mw't is a dillit so a ptolitahle tJ't't'tt that great i ol vs II tlillit to but lltt?. stillt I'll t'apitalists and wotltets-Heten argeh ting ntatlte two It? million or so sitting enettrial attd extra entrept ette ottntet tit set-ins less already exists between libertarians and in ms assot-iations. my; own obsert atiotts are ansat'tions lat t. relationships running the and retords to lull-stale question. one. historians. Why sueb an obsert gentle, then. And wage-labor's historit'al be the diaper-abut sttrelr toile erett a more adr ?t?t'ith the side-e )asis oi' agoristn neglecting the de?nite that independent tteal'h' elilttittates them relatit'e to bossrworltet atnut Itotti t'asttal labor with annoying papet'wtn'kl Kl?llpp worker But this is an as .?tlises would sax. not exert l'or t'redetltials should be ralled ation is ittexplitable?sate as an art oi terbal . ltelit ntajt' hare been as great as the t?trainittg (in this ease. entreprenettrta IN ante? Xt ttrsion orer and the Ne ?white marke lt?glet?ted. he - -tlte . . .. . uttedh . We turn to Libertarian Strategy. in it tltere is one t'rnt'ial noon on it . . Ittother ?ll Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance #1 1981 I3 agoi'ist imperative is to transform the White into Black. Nothing could be clearer. To do so is to create a libertarian society. What else not Iibertariaii society mean in C?mumif removing market activity from the control of the State? Market activity not under control of the State is black market. ?Market" activity under the control of the State is white market and we are against it. To illustrate, slaves building pyramids are white market. Slaves who run away, deal on the side stones and tools they ripped oll, and otherWise enga in non-slave activity are black market?andjree to that extent. What shoul the libertarian view he toward white-market pyramid building? if you think pyramids would not exist in a free society but aqueducts might, what should our new be toward aqueduct building on the white market its black?market water smuggling? New Libertarians urge the slaves to screw the aqueduct and go for their private buckets until such time as aqueducts can be built under voluntary arrangements. Would Rothbard suggest anything else? Gradual phasing out of aqueduct construction and hence gradual phasing out of slavery? Rothbard's abolitionist credentials are not challenged, though my own treatment on such matters may impel me otherwise. But a mainly innocent businessman who pays taxes is enslaved to that extent and surely his going black by dodging or defying the taxes (whichever works best) is the immediate emanci ation of this slave} How can Rothbard reject any Counter-Economic moves liy a white marketeer that has less than [00% risk of apprehension without yielding his abolitionist bimajides? Rothbard's listing ol counter-economic services and goods are interesting in one respect: of ?jewels, gold. drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc." only one?drugs ?is mentioned in the i'llariif'esto. True, Counter-Economics is only now being published chapter by chapter. but even so, the few examples I gave were anything but a tew service industries or easily concealed goods. Here is a list, sifted from pages IG and 17, which were mentioned: ?iood to television repair;" an entire country ?Burma is almost a total black marked?this _does.inclu-de heavy industry, although Burma has less than the heavy industry of India which is mostlv black: the large ?black labor" force of Western Europe: housing in the Netherlands; tax evasion in Denmark; currency control evasion in France; ?underground economy" tax-free exchanges in the ?drugs including laetrile and forbidden medical material;" ?prostitution, pornography, boot- legging, false identi?cation papers, gambling, and proscribed sexual conduct tween consenting adults;" trucking (the majority, by the way); smuggling at all levels; and misdirection of government regulators. All of these are not petty but, consciousl or otherwise, aggregate big busmesses! Automobiles are made counter-economically. Let me count the ways: shipping them across borders and evading taxes or controls?whether physically or on paper; illegal alien labor for assembly?line production: skimmin of parts by management, labor, or even with knowledge of thevowners, whic then go to produce custom cars: auto plant executives Ired as independent consultants;" design, research, engineering, executive and computerfronsultants" all paid in partial or full counter?economic terms: union "corruption" to make sweetheart deals to avoid labor (State) regulations; OSHA and other inspectors bought off or misdirected; ?unsold" product written oll inventory and taxes and then sold; . . forget it. I cannot possibly count a? the ways. And next to autos, steel and cement have positively mutimiy reputations?when it comes to "white collar" crime. [981 Strategy of??te New ?be" . ?4 arm" Alliance is a problem of scale here. Large. cartellzed indu . . . But the gain their advantages from the Estate directly. True P??iti?ans a: ded by the State. can. should. and does pay off. bribe 3:62:11:in of producers can fie-(lively buy votes and politicimlqmazld Eh a begtempted into using Ihf?l" P?fmw?ll ?Tilel?m?e'i" 31!: industry in TE: cartelized sense is no breeding ground iorltber tartan support but rather for the State's vested interests. However. there ts no need to confuse large Scale 0f production with oligopolist characteristics. as Rothbard seems to be doing here as we clost' out this area. Rothbard accuses me of ignoring the working class. Considering how often he's had the charge leveled at him, ltne might expect a bit more pet-L-eptit-ily It not sensitivity. What are Plumbers, mechanics. carpenters. welders. drivers. farm workers, pilots. actors. accoun- tants. engineers. technicians. lab assistants, computer programmers and just keypunch operators. nurses. midwives. paramedics and orthomedics (doctors), salesmen. public relations people. bartenders. waitresses. writers. factory Stries L'iin bu. . anyone about workers. lawyers. executives. and all types of repairmen if not workers. covering the entire spectrum of proletarianism? All of that list are at least 20% counter-economic and many are over 50%. If they do not take the lirst step by beunning independent contractors toward economic liberty. then their employer does (tax-free tips [or waitresses. off-the- book illegal alien factory workers. agents handling it for actors. writers. and 50 (mi- 1 Challenge Dr. Rothbard to ?nd any legitimate field (not serving the State) that cannot be counter-economized. ten that cannot be counter- economized without organizational or technological innovation. or a hundred that cannot be counter-econolnized without signilicant gain in organizational - ?i - - - . il Ef?uent} and pro?t. has plenty to say to everyone till" 15 statist. i :mhbizlr?: ts Ithat political action is superior and coming from th tghtentng of the levy Is anancredtbl?e distoltlo? fer beenil single repeal off: One Who ?inv?led me to rerisronlsm. 1 here 113.5 net. ntl'ears or purposes ftaxation or_srgm_ttcant cut (save a few minor ones In rt?f?fihaI i not result fr 0 tinkering and now Laflerite ?Its? gets mm? 0m mass relusal to ay or the threat ofsuch disobedientf} more POlitical - l1 1' [ola action has re . - and l? Under?such as the inf 5U ted In shilts In the tax base f3 herel? California. ammasly spectacular debacle of Proposition Rothbard' . . - \Ir. who inform:tiigrtel'iirii1 alliaivli: shy") Egon i5 ungraciously spurned l1} ill.? gener' ees as )litic-tl-Iike activty" (NL- - .. . - "101Rothbard but that entrepreneurs are believes Preneum are In SUbse?luenl correspondence. added thillI 5Ucc?ssfu nn and "01 made?or at least not make-ab 6; 'kc entr . . - MRS . lsonlun but succesigprensurs are not going to be agorlt? lhe"rcm - honk'n . wit ?Nd l'lls group?" Hul entrepreneurs period. hat do the)? "Ce oing ?0 be - ow a DUI. "Successful businessmen are "m Strategy ofthe New Libertarian Alliance #l [981 15 tlu'tnt'titians like Rtitliliaitl lint snut'sslul businessmen period. What do their need ol Rothhaltl and his group?" (Jr "stu'tesslul engineers are not going to be plnsiis theolclitians like Dr. lainstein . . Ur. writers are not going to he lattglish instt tutoi like l?tolessor Strunk . . .?xeedl the Rothliard lallat s} Rothhat tl's position on libertarians being (lit hotomired from entrepreneurs is monstrous to me. .ihcltal ian" has nothing to do with what one but is itlt what ntu' dot-t. Heine a libertarian must he more trustworthv and haven more rational ol the market or he she is an! a libettatian regardless ol hill-the} ptntess. [his is the basis [or mv mm Making for whit l1 Ur. Rothhartl commends me. And. on the whole. I lind the satne lack Mark-colored glasses in him. I hasten to add. .?tnd what personal experient or academic study leads Rotltbard to conclude that pre-Iibet'tal ian counter-eronomists do just ?ne without agorists "to cheer them on and lice them lroni guilt." Ms personal ex )erient'e leads toe to net iseh the opposlte cont lusion and I has cancelled heques of contribution . and letters of gratitude to prove it. In short. whatevcl planet that the good doctor is describing in contra- distinttion to int sure isn't Earth. Rothbard's statement that violent revolution {what other kind is there against a ruling class??wtiu d he like to mention an Establishment that stepped down peacefully?) never succeeded in history distorts either the language or history. Either he is saving that no revolution has been libertarian enough to triumph without its contradictions bringing it down (true. but then irrelevant to bring it up as precedent) or he is saving that no group overthrew a ruling class using democratic means ol?oppression. The latter is not onlv false but a direct reversal of history. Nearly all somewhat successful revolutions in recent history have overthrown preciselv democratic trappings: American Revolutionaries is the democratic British lmperialists; jacohin Revolutionaries vs the bourgeous assembles; Liberal Revolutionaries a ainst the (Izar's Damn (March Mil?) and the Bolshevik revolution against the .iherals and Social Democrats (November the against the Spanish Republic Peron?s shirtless ones against the Argentine parliament; the National Liberation Front of Viet Nam to the South Vietnamese parliament {at least until near the end); the popular overthrow of Allende's democratically-elected regime (with Pinochet co?opting the revolution for the military): and the recent overthrow of the democratically? elected but right?wing president of El Salvador by a centrist ?popular" junta. This list is not exhaustive. A claim that ?violent revolution" has only succeeded in ?democratic countries with free elections? would be nearer the mark. and is often used by Latin American militaries as justi?cation for preventive coups. All of the above revolutionary groups have their credentials open to libertarian questionfar? To close up this side issue, either Rothbard is saying that all ?violent" overthrows of States were not revolutions because they were not libertarian (in which case the libertarian case is untried) or he is historically wrong. I 6 1981 Strategy IIfthI' New 55?, rtarian it] IIt?lIIll'si' ?Ft? un?linIl Ii-muut?h hiltMIN-HIM. 1! ?11? fl'i'llt? lIliII Rll-?I? i? ??31??ng I hidden? ?w awn?: Pinning!? Inilitinh' ii'u'i? dim-?I? ?It; Iu-Iltl' IllIlIxtIHII It" - I'llsI'I's In(.t-mmnn .II. [ht- ?Hum!? ?w IllIlI-(Il' ?ml? II IRS Il?? II lulu-H II I- lI'It.? Ilt? ?IIt?h' New I II IiIitit'II the I- II-I- him Ill? is? .Lll't' I Il'lt? met and hunt than we IlI't? exchanged him .Is I 101' um: Marxists ?sane. and is guimiim' ?It ilsuII. it Illukt?? up [Ilt? Yet in same way; it I II his I'll} writing ?Inc? I his I will is - . New ?Jilin-i?- ?rguni?mm? "light I "CI-chain?s or 1:19It'iltI II quit "'"Iil PUSSIIJIC. ?I"l 11?? is Ilti?i'jptanw 0' lIltStrategy oj'the New Libertarian Alliance #1 198I 17 With that constantly in the reader's awareness (pages 22. ?23. and 33% of are a long disclaimer to this very pointl). it is obvious that there are no moral (other than questions involved in organization and hierarchy. "lumping all together" that Rothbard decries might be considered integration of concepts by others.) Nowhere have I ever opposedjoint-stock companies (see page 23 again where they are :l/trr penned I set up precisely that to own New Libertarian magarine. I assume we both continue to oppose the statist perversion of?joint-stock companies into limited-liability corporations. 1 has never suggested ?floating affinity groups." Should l)r. Rothbard set up a general Libertarian .-\lliance which runs no candidates and engages in no statism. I will take out a hundred-year membership immediately. I urge him to ?call me out" on this point. I see from: problems tn organiration than Rothbard does and can easily see some organizations not having any. l'het'e is a bit of irony in Rothbard's )irited defense of the "Kochtopus" since his own defection but I'll let that pass. have to mention his secession from and opposition to it because that. effectively. ends my major objection to it and I ?nd it relatively harmless and conceivably needing my defense in the near future as tlte chorus of opposition swells. lo the extent that my early attacks are responsible for the demimopolization of the Movement I am thankful. For the record. my aitn in as spectacularly drawing attention to the mono- centrism around Koch's money as I did was a warning. Too many Hen-libertar- ians think only taking money from the State leads to dependency and control. lirue. it is not woman! in a libertarian sense to become a billionaire's kept writer or lap-activist bill it hardly serves the movement's image and hence is un-New-l.ibertarian. I knew the rest of the Left would attack libertarians for being a plutocrat?s tool (as .Untfm'junes eventually did) and took action to show the existence of diversity and independence. Off?hand. I?d say it worked. I agree with all of Rotbbard's defense of millionaire libertarians and have a few (not mnhi-millionaires to be sure) in alliance with me. His solution to increase competition in the Movement is and was tny solution. I doubt that having Koch compete with himself is a viable answer, though; even Rothbard seems hesitant about suggesting it. My being ?unfair to (lharles Koch" requires a bit of semantic care. I have never implied that (Zharles Koch personally was motivated to do anything. slay-hurry who threw millions into the Movement with a bit ofjudgment in buying up institutions would have produced the same results. I'll take Rothbard's and LeFevre's?who know him personally?word that Koch is a great guy. May he profit richly and evade the State forever! (But may he never buy another politician.) .?Lnd may he contribute to his heart's content to any Libertarian or Libertarian organization {save the LP). (iee. what a great movement when a poor activist like me can be so generous to an oil billionaire! But I?ll go further than Rothbard in my willing recognition of the positive personal characteristics of the Kochtopus. Roy (lhilds may be cranky and unforgiving at times but he's a fun. erudite person of superior taste. no tnore deviationist than Dr. Riggenbach remains a friend. associate and sometime ally even working full-time for Koch's Libertarian Rt?l'fr?tt'. loan Kennedy 'l'aylor. Victoria lVargas. Milton Muel?er?whom did I leave I've had nothing but enjoyable contacts with them all. Even lid (Erane 18 1981 Strategy af?ne New Libertarian Alliance #1 non) is a laugh a minute with a ready handshake and a fast quip who serves Liberty as he sees best for him and the Movement. Mar none of us ever sink to ad hmaiaem. . Finally. the Libertarian Party. Rothbard says he will ?assu me lor the moment that a libertarian political party. . .is an! evil per se." I wonder how open he would be to assuming the State is not evil per se and then continuing the discussion of some legislation. let us see where It leads him. It seems to lead to the wonder of repeal of laws. Now Rothbard's historical acumen seems to did the State repeal anything from the ave failed him again. Since when tiniest it had (as! (tumor lorn Laws to suburban property tax try to maintain that late? First comes coouter-economic scoli- Iawmg. then mass civil disobedience. then the threat of insurrection. and only then repeal. No. I don't agree with LeFevre that it is immoral to repeal the draft (assuming Lel-?evre would say precisely that) but it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve one oppression. For all the money. titne and energy that needs to go into electing a politician good on one or a few issues. how many could be directly freed and their risk of apprehension reduced in tax evading. draft evading. regulation evading. and so on? Nor do you need exhort the evaders to contribute to a noble cause but simply offer?- and some sell this for exorbitant l'eesl?instruction on how to do beat detection and watch them go for it . . .freeiag themselves, not being freed by someone else. Votes are the "profits" of a political party. A party is an organ of the State whose overt purpose is to vie for control of the State and whose co-opt support?sanction of the victim. The num of successfully elected of?cials number of those still accepting the State?s legitimacy and possible usefulness. (lrane and the Clark Campaign were only acting in accordance with their nature qua partyarch. As Frank (Ihodorov might have said. "The way to get rid ofsell- outs in LP jobs is to get rid of l.l?jobs." Let's take up those political parties Rothb that the Democrats were not so lovable in (Jaareieeri in Liberty when. asJefferson Republicans. they fought the Anti-Federalism and co-opted opposition to the Constitution. Did Jackson. the agent of Nullification's defeat: Van Buren. the archetype of boss politics; I?ollt. the anti-Mexican imperialist; or Pierce and Buchanan. the defenders of slavery; redeem this tainted beginning? And the British Liberals were condemned by Rt advocates into defense of Empire minarchists?Iet alone the many anarchists even then?ofthe time for Democrats or Liberals. 'l'hose minarchist relorme Soil Party in the and the l'hilosophic Radical Pa It would be gaarhe of me to remind Dr. Rothbard who invented the Radical (laucus and then discarded it when it served nothing but ?objectively counter- revolutionary" ends so I?ll pass this section . militant and abolitionist LP in control of( how did it get there? How maid it get there? more plausible. In fact. the LP will be in power during the final stages ofagonsl revolution to lure away our marginal allies and ensnare the unwary ?Libertarian" newspeak. The 1.1? will be put in power as as the Highs?" Circles need it there. I have no doubt that Dr. Rothbard will be the first to notice and denounce the collaboration. covert one is to her of votes dictate the number and their share of power and plunder and the ard linds admirable. It is clear )thbard for leading Liberty's and \l'orld War. Nor did the moderate ave any use rs were then in the Free rty in Britain, respectively. Zongress" begs the question? ;eorge Smith's scenario seems far 'ian Alliance #1 handshake and a the Movement. ie for the moment tler how open he rn continuing the It seems to lead to again. Since when rban pi'opertv tax er-economic scoff- iri'ectioii. and only to repeal the draft imoral to support ression. For all the ticiaii good on one sk of apprehension and so on? Nor do but simply offer-? 0 do beat detection by someone else. organ of the State lose covert one is to . dictate the number nd plunder and the possible usefulness. ice with their nature ray to get rid of sell- idniirable. It is clear when. as_]eflerson id opposition to the eat; Van Buren. the ialist: or Pierce and . for leading Liberty 5 Ir did the moderate he time have any use ere then in [he?l-ree Britain. respectively. invented the Radical ?objectively counter- begs the questionrr; 'i's scenario seems ?nal stages of ago . lie {11 5 soon 10 not?. . Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance #1 198l 19 (lan vou imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting ltil' masters Iailttl . . their energy on and candidates when the} totilt it ?Pun" gf' - the ?underground railwa ?r Surely they would choose the - surely Rothliai'd would urge them to do so and not he into remaining on the plantation until the .-\bolitionist is Clt?t?lt?tl. . . . . Rothbard's characterizing me as a 'wrecker is truly surprising to me all the libertarian organizations and publications I have built tip and suppoi?ted?uioi?e than anyone else save Dr. Rothbai?tl li'oii?i Wisconsin to New York to (Ialilornia. and in nearly every state. province and countrv on this globe. I supposed to list all the libertarian groups which have uh! been subjected to moral attacks by me? How about every libertarian suppvl? club in Los .-\iigeles and New ?l orltr l?llt' hociety'loi? Individual Liberty. Societv [or Libertarian Lile. the old (Ialilornta Libertarian Alliance and lexas Libertarian Alliance. the British Libertarian Alliance. the Future of Freedom annual conference. the Southern Libertarian (lonl'erence . . .oh. this is ridiculous. Yes. I stopped beating my wile?even if I'm not married. The only things I?ve wrecked are the wreckers of our movement. defence of pai'tyai'chy and compromise of ?hen ls Rothbai'd claiming that he averted his eyes from those Line" because they might otherwise be doing good work? In conclusion. Rothhard and I continue to light for the against the same things. Hopefully we will continue to light in our own ways. reaching those the other missed. And most hopefully may we reduce our time and energy spent on lighting each other to free resources against the common enemy. I shall let no outstretched hand be passed tip. ?the New Libertarians and the Rothbai?dian (lentrists must devote some time to our differences ("engage in Revolutionary Dialogue"). let it be devoted ?rst to understanding each other?as this exchange is devoted to??and then resolving the differences. Ah. then let the State and its elite quake! once party-free in general. leaving ?The Plumb same things?~and i 20 1981 Strategy oftlie New Libertarian #1 Return To Babylon by Robert LeFevre Samuel Edward Konkin New Libertarian Meagan: falls short of literar acclaim and fails. at least in my judgment. of sounding a clarion call for the Libertarian cause- This does not imply lack of value or meaning. The thirty?one pages of small print has de?nite merit in a number of places and here and there ?ashes of wisdom illumine a passage. The author is to be commended for his clear grasp of economic principles and his devotion to marketplace procedures to the extent that he ursues them. This is the ma or achievement emerging from the so-called ?old left" and ho efully signais a bur eoning return to sanity for those who, in earlier days. su fered from internal leeding. but whose ?cure" was the senseless leveling of everyone and everything in society which had managed despite the odds to continue to sta a?oat. Konkin?s de ication to what he calls Agoric tactics conveys the substance ofhis position. It means, in short. that individual libertarians are capable of acting now within a free market context. if they don't permit fear of government to inhibit them altogether. This position deserves to be applauded until the sound echoes and heartily lend support to it. A word of caution shoul be inserted. The ls'onkin Manifesto is not the pro place for such advisory words and my addition does comprise a criticism oft at document. But it is high time something were said. and this appears to be an appropriate place to say it. - . If Agoric enterprises are to make the impact they deserve to make. libertarian enterprisers are going to have to do a betti'rJOb than their competitors already in the field. Thus far, they are not doing it. Price advantage and a chance to avoid the state by tax evasion is no substitute for integrity. Many who appear as Agoric enterprisers have cheated or otherwise betrayed. their customers. Indeed, 'have personally found it necessary to be especially careful when dealing with a person calling himself. libertarian. All too often the sell-styled libertarian has demonstrated a lack of concern for even fundamental honesty. Many have already experienced this lack among conventional marketeers and more of the same Is not helpiul. While I would not personally subscribe to the practicesanany would?be customers of Agoric enterprises discover to their dismay that ll they are cheated through black market patronage. legal action against-their suppliers ts out oi the question. Agoric enterprises cannot . succeed. without building customer con ?dence. Persons who are cozened into buying Simply because oi a war": fellow-feeling philosophically. lose both the leeling and the philosophy y: confronted Will] misrepresentation, poor quality and deception recourse. 77 ,I?my New Libertarian Alliance #l 1981 21 strategy Ill" ?1 any llh'lu?ul?hi? l? by the thaiattei ol its ?lt.tl(regaitl. (h that say they are liheitatian .iie tei'elt I'lic lot'cgoittg_ - 1 . "H'I'dl. considering thr- condition we are in; dominated anti toeited by llallid. huh ??Htled insensihlfi' to equate all Hoym'ninbnt in obtaining protet coloration. It while not a ti'ititisin ol the Moro/?y? ?pens the (loot, lhe Hrdinat't 1? the 513?) h-gislation I here aI't? um llm't?l?nnient is an ottoptis oi mam tentai lcs. munbei ol laws on the books of the state condemning dishonesty. and are at lions whit it should be rL?hicssed: l?sltlull ?i repressed by tlit dist iphne and determination ?t?i'llt?ll disobedicnt to got eintneni is tetominended pm .w and mi hm a tli'illt'l' lUl' the indiy itlual to hide that dishonesty. inisrepresentation ?1 I I ?1 are acceptable in} ms oi coiidtitt since the state It, "always ts'i'ong. mill .. . . . . . thousands who lail to make the distinction that while the state is in its methods and procedures in eyery case. the ends ostensibly sought may wry well be desirable and necessary. . . he ?tfmupsrn is lacking at this point. Breaking a law is not a yirtuous act per am but ihc makes it appear so. Thus. it may well occur that some simplistic minds. thinkingr to obstruct the state. will coiitlude that any action they take whith titilales some goyernment tikase is commendable. [be state has been iar more i leyer than many suppose. It has mixed yirttie .md I?ltlet irtne in its demands. But it has used all its instruments of propaganda to cause both the dtill and the simplistic to belieye that eyerything that is morally proper is demanded by the state. Thus, law and tnorals haye been inextricably intertwined. in break the law has become immoral: to obey it. ntoral. Neither is necessarily the case. The objectiye of a giyen enactment must be examined for its intrinsic character. With the state we deal constantly with both ends and means. [he means of the state are corrosiye and yicious without exception. Libertarians are among those who supposedly have the necessary acumen to determine the difference between ends and means. Thus. they should be able to practice self-discipline by men demonstration that they are more honest than those who are only honest because the state appears to compel it. Indeed. this confusion arising from inappropriate means employed to achieye desirable ends may well be the most profound reason why the state cannot attain its objectiyes. It is at this point that the .llrmijesle achieyes its greatest height. Konkin?s explanation of the mandatory use of desirable means that will achieye desirable ends is superb. He champions consistency. It is the core?of his opposition to such alleged "libertarian" actiyities as political party One of the major objections which I must yoice relates to the position taken in 1h? :llf'fh?lfest?o concerning restoration and/or restitution. lollowing the com- mission of a crime. While I will quickly assert that Konkin's explanation is lucid and brief. it does not square with his insistence upon a harmony between and means. being has a right to his own life and property then it ?ther- has a rightful claim to the [lie or property oi any - is aeal to satisiy the wishes oi those who say they hate been 22 l98] Strategy ofthe New Libertarian Alliance #1 Hi Konkin sets forth an argument. sometimes brilliant. sometimes sophisl in which it appears that the individual having rights to his own life anti property. loses those rights if and when he violates the property boundary of another. If such a conclusion is valitl. then it follows that the only persons who have rights are persons who do not violate property boundaries. If this proposition is accepted. then the concept of rights applies only to a limited number of persons and It is based upon their behavior and not upon their nature as human beings. Now the fundamental nucleus around which the notion oft'ights orbits, is that the concept must universally apply or be meaningless. If the concept of rights is to be delimited. applying only to those persons who behave in a specific manner then we have a concept oi privilege and not a concept of rights. ll 1we are to accept the notion ol priv ilege as the I. ore to our social structure we are at once reverted to feudalism. Only those who behave as the Lord dictates have the privilege of living. The Lord has the ?divine? right to eliminate others, since they had no rights of their own in the first place. But Konkin wastes little time on such niceties. Rather. he makes it appear that the criminal has not only lost his rights. but that his victim has gained rights over hint and. thus. the victim to a large degree. becomes the owner and possessor of the criminal and may dispose of him according to the wishes of the victim. ameliorated perhaps by the pleas of a third-party insuror or other arbitrator. This is the argument of the Statist. But having denounced the state in the most specific and conclusive terms. Konkin now embraces the state procedures as a major virtue. While it is wrong for the state to claim the life or property of anyone because no one is the property of the state. it is entirely acceptable for the victim to lay claim to restitution and restoration at the cost of the criminal. Indeed. Konkin describes restitution and restoration as a mural imperative. But that is what the state says. Then citing Rothbard. and the 'l'annehills as pioneers in this area. Konkin offers us a paragraph which I repeat here in its entirety so that Its character can bejudged. . ?First. always leaving out those who choose not to participate. oneansures oneself against aggressmn or theit. One can even assign a value to one 5 life in case of murder (or inadvertent manslaughter) which may range from the taking of the violence-initiators life to taking replaceable organs [technology Willing) If} restore life. to the payment to a foundation to continue one's life work. ?lt hat Is crucial here is that the victim assigns the value of his life, body and before the mishap. (Exchangeable goods may simply be replaced at market tater See below.)? understand this proposal. the victim of a crime gains a property only over the criminals property. but. depending on the nature 01 I over the victim's person and even the victim?s life. Further. and based upon what has gone before as well as upm [mm used. it is morally mandatory that the victim get back more than was ?lien-rinte. him. It is this margin which is viewed as a deterrent against haul; :ientf Somehow. at this juncture. wish that Konkin was less i'tuntltar ,iy?dgar ?ction. I am swept back to my boyhood days and the wonderful an Rice Burroughs. most particularly his classic a] .llm'h R35 his protagonist. Vad \'aro. right. he crimt?t 1 the quotation Strategy of the New Libertarian :Ulimice #l [981 23 [he has invited its to travel in time in an effort to t'etognixc the magnificence of a truly libertarian society. I have found it astonishingly easv to comply. l?H' the atgutnents giyen I am not only resetting to my teens and the ?title?! of 1 ant swept back to Babylon and an ()riental despot named llammurabi. ?hat the Mum/est? is calling a libertarian society was existent at that time. some years ago. [here were no police. They were invented ill the lEtth century by Sir Robert l?eel Britain. Ilatnmurabi. as it turned out. ltad a kind of restitutionrestoration agency. Historians hay generally agreed that it could be termed the principle of?an for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." While the .llmuft'sru imites us to travel both backwards and forwards in time. the result that 1 see takes us backward to Babylon and there we are beached. We will not only has ?an cs for any eye: a tooth for a tooth." We will have liver for liter; spleen for spleen. a kidney. heart or gall bladder for its counterpart. l'nless I am grossly incapable of understanding the words employed. I see here a chamber of horrors so brutal and heinous that by comparison l?orquemada?s rack and become a taffy pull and manicure. But let me set the sadism aside for a tnoment and consider the consequences of such a svstetn. (Liven this totuept as a Hindus i'itwm?i millions of people will wislt to become victims! (Irimes can be staged which haven?t occurred. lncriminating evidence can be planted. Indeed. I can envision schools conducted by various Fagins engaged in encouraging the perpetration of pseudo aggression. The possibilities are endless. What a marvelous way of bringing an enemy to ruin. Act use hitn of having imposed an injury upon you. fake care that you purchase a few witnesses and plant a bit of evidence. and you hate a profitable business. Indeed. like the criminal class in Egypt. you can permit yourself to be titaimed and tnade grotesque. It insures generous alms and a good living. We are now back to Shakes mare and the Merchant of Venice. After all. the request of Shylock was the fill illment of his bond. And this would be warranted what the calls a ?libertarian" system. In this strange system. Antonio will die under 1 re knife. and the blood shed. although not mentioned in the bottd. will constitute ?unfit" to the victim; that mar inal deterrent. To offset this. the Alain/est? and its supporters will rare to write a series of elaborate laws which identify. define and specify a pretended crime as a crime in itself. Excluding semantics. what makes such a procedure different from that of every state in existence? If such a procedure is not followed. then we will have each insurance company engaged in filling each contract with fine print as to what is and what is not a crime. as set forth by the directors of that company. I see small merit in competition toward brutality. Indeed. this has been the bane of nearly ever effort made by alleged .-\narchists. of whom I have knowledge. 'l'liey decry the state. They vilify the state. They excoriate it. It will be abolished. And in place of it they tell us we will have a system in which precisely the same remedies are sought by processes which include the use of violence and the violation of men's minds. bodies and property. But we won't call it a state! It will be an Insurance Company. Or a Protection (Iompany. a Restoration. Restitution Retaliation Ragout: Alas. there is still more. 1 am told (page para. 15). )nly at this point. when the matter has been 24 l98 Strategy ufi?he New Libertarian Amine: #1 lully contested. and judged. and relinquish the stolen property. ll we take a look at the real world. we will discover that if doesn't wish to be a contestant and refuse employed long beforejudgtnent is rende hotne. where the victim alleges he has seen his stolen the allegation. force must be used to win guilty of nothing except that he looks like the aggres allegedly stolen had a duplicate which has honestly acquired? Then we find an innocent person. seeking to maintain his privacy and go about his business peacelully. victimized by an investigative company merely to please the wishes of A. who. tti tact. may not even have experienced an act of theft but wishes to destroy the credibility of B. The true nature of cannot be determined prior to an contest. and ajudgment. But these things cannot be obtain if is unwilling. The guilty conceivably would always be who are innocent would likewise be unwilling. Or will The suggestion is made that we can have prison camps (but not prisons) and that here and there we can always kill (it is alleged) himself. performed some act of killing. Isn't this a clear case of asking the ends tojustil'y the means? it appears so. at which point we have waved goodbye to consistency. I ?nd it diffic tilt to come up with a dollar scale by means ofwhich to set a price on life. consent to intimacy and non-kidnapping. Indeed, and for reasons Konkin has set forth. I find it difficult. impossible. to come up with a dollar value even for stolen dollar has a different value to different people. scales of value. for dollars. goods and services. Thus. as Konkin correctly shows. value judgments enter in and restitution and restoration must be arbitrarily imposed as a deterrent. indeed. this appears to be the primary rationale for asking for inure than a mere. restoration or restitution. Since it would be impossible to. arrive at a condition identical to that which preceded the crime. then error Will be made btit it must be made on hem; property rights over the [gerpetrator (Eli ?t?l'llile appears to overlook the fact that on occasion. at rune [tidy e-FUiHlme, . ciipsyf ofdire ?nancial uindll'?ns- bitch conditions will mam. est many wor (d limited resources and imperfect human bemgs. \i hile the oltflelr ?attemptt?e' to make it appear that a? crime arose from poverty (absurd on its face) the act remains that some crimes have always been caused by p?iiveynon.? person": starving he will very possibly steal. even if he has to in?ict inIca on at - - nder in rocess. [heliit because of this fact: Hilly act of theft iS'Ell regardless of motivation. But i see nothing the a possibility into consideration. 1 he is a tiiniina . . A :iisiikiisi iititil?ibtgenerous and gracious in the Manifesto own position for which I thank him. further. he is at lealsl Piml.? ?mt .vl?f? (the aggressor) i?el'iis would violence occur." 9-5 In (the aggressor) ated. coercion must be permit entry into his roperty. then. to verifv But what if. is sor. or that what was to be investig red. if will in B's compliance. investigation. And a ed without coercion. unwilling. But many willingness be law? for the recalcitrant he person who has. if not property. A single depending on their relative Str?l??g)? ofthe New Libertarian Alliance #1 1981 25 stati?g (footnote, page 7} "Lei-?evre?s pacifism also dilutes the libertarian tactics. probably tar tnore than deserved." That my position tends to turn away In is a moot point- But 1 have never taken a position with the view to making it p0pular, her). statement 1 haveanade I have tried to make consistent with truth and with the fundamental definition (if human llbet?ty. have not called for a following. I have found my own way and would not deprive a single person of thejoy he can experience by finding his. Konkin is correct when he observes in the same footnote that: "He (Le Fevre) holds back from describing a complete strategy resulting from these personal tactics, partially due to a fear of being charged with prescribing as well as describing. The strategy which i have repeatedly set forth does not and will not appear to he a strategy for those who insist on group action. They can conceive of no strategy deserving of the name until people are somehow welded into a group. The strategy I have offered goes hand in hand with the tactics I also recommend. it is the same one-on-one procedure which assists each individual in removing himself without violence from the cloying, clutching tentacles of all states. While admittedly it cannot be done either instantly nor perfectly, it can he achieved by those who wish to achieve it. I make no apology for its imperfections. Agoric enterprises aren't perfect either, and never will be. Humanity does not produce perfect specimens. Finally. I come to what I view as a second inconsistency in the ilfani?sto. Encouraged by the author's invitation, let me point to it. in passing through the various phases which Konkin?s imagination has portrayed, we come at last to the transition between phase 3 and 4. Konkin sees this period as inevitably violent, in total betrayal of the very principles he claims to espouse. ?Revolution is as inevitable as any human action can be," is Konkin?s footnote assertion. So, in the end, regardless of peaceful means, we must throw out the Agoric principles of self-ful?llment and kill the statists as the only way to a free $0ciety, attraction of his any is con?rmed. That I deserve better Konkin acknowledges that there are arguments against this view. Personally, I believe it is Konkin's philosophic origin in left-of-center areas which causes him to cling to this position. The Primary reasons I should like to offer which in my view significantly alter the ulne.*vit.ability" he sees, relate to the method he uses of advancing Agortc causes, and the nature of capitalism in all forms including the Agoric. BY Employing the one?on-one educational tnethod, the gradual resurgence of tee enterprise will advance only as rapidly as our ability to educate makes it possible. Thus, free market principles are never imposed, they are learned and proven by those who learn and practice. An uninhibited market place is far more profitable and comfortable than an Inhibited marketplace, The assertion that "Statists" adhere to statism 26 198] Strategy ofthe New Libertarian Alliance #l neglects the reality of a major characteristic ol all Statists. prolit. 'l'hev seek applause. recognition and t'otnlort. As 1h Agortc principles untold and enlarge bv the adding ol?dedicated practitioner moving tn that direction becomes expedient. All statists are given to and seek the high ground. There will be a natural tendencv for the most ambitious and most capable statists to move in that direction. i Io be successful in any kind of free market. Agoric or conventional. capital Investments must be made. No one with capital invested can afford the risks to capital destruction and divestiture entailed in war. And in this context take note: All wars are state-inspired. But thev are invariablv directed against another state, not against the politicians ol'the local state. Politicians don't wage war. They make the war by encouraging conflict which keeps them out of harm's war. Part of the politician's "capital" is the sanction he has obtained from his own country- men. and part consists of his pose of super-intelligence which must be protected by the sacri?ce olhothers. He will risk more by violent conflict than by moving in the direction of free enterprise. I am delighted to see the lionkin Manifesto and can applaud it In genernt tor its position respecting consistency. objective and method. My objections. if understood. may heighten its impact. I believe it will have and deserves to have a compelling in?uence upon members of the ?old" lel't. Here its svntax and its sometimes purple passages may well be pivotal in any number of Instances. I wish it and its author well. Robert LeFevre, October I 98-0 Reply to LeFevre by S.E. Konkin In one sense, there is little to say to Robert LeFevre?s reply to the Libertarian His position and potential response was pl? 2; NLM, as he himself observes accurately. and he responded We?? predicted. ()ur area of agreement and disagreement retnams the same: Le Fevrians are wagging in a New Libertarian soctetv: the movement: doing true but since they have. if consistent, prevented themielve-s ?Timed fear anything about us. we can live together. Of course. the Le elirdi? ?3??an nothing from New Libertarians; what will lht?ll' ?Ellie?l?? re?50r5_ Since and possible shunning is that we will defend ourselves algal?:I dg?oth over the the pure LeFevrians will never be aggressors. the}; ?rd? :1 ?piste-Wit injuries or possible injuries of murderers. thieves, burglars dnTheir stingless the heroic self-defenders being the object ol their Width- buzzing. I hasten to add; their biteless bark. LeFevre has done more to increase our ranks than Murray Rothbard. It is truly instructive in the divers Libertarians to see the total m'thogmmlitjr of his critique ol 3 Rothbard's. The two views are perpendicular with no ovt?lili?P: what Rothbard rejects and awe I?t'tm?. although there is an at . advanced section that both are. expectedly. unsure 01. not be - *n anv individual other tha itv of the Movement 00 1 compared Le Fev re accepts in the late'. yew Libertarian Alliance #l 191'? 27 gtr?li?w' ?lid", H-I-?eyre has railii alirt-tl and galayiinixi-d hundreds ol thousands 11111onin 111 them tt-Inaui [m and absorb the outlet layer ol his ideology wlui turnout \lthougll n'iatls. it is his 1011'. . . I I ?it. 1s superb. do:- to his will. skill. a dear 1? \t?l'lo ctor?s training. about [eh-He's position often neglected is all thi- ions he's introdut ed to the philosophy. llu- pat ilist [mm ll?ll' it? him had methods to aitonililish deli-use dull ll'h ol the best ol his lollowets in students who remain i hi9 basit Ratllotil. (.alolini- Rola-t-Ilcfi?o. Linda 3.: Riqui [.1411] and Hart 31- Browne tonn- readily to mind lb:- [0 l) 11ml 3? One innoy at true 5y same ingenuity "h an ?Willi lot ?1 ?"Wtwme at being about out Holt?m and innoyatiye tendent y. We sell-delending libel tat ians tenth-111 ies or rhetoric lor the \alue ol the product ol that pat ilist-inotiyated rege?dl'th. the less to spent on the oy e1 head ol sell-delense. the better; tould dmilling be closer to a "uniyetsal good?" him? all that. LeFey r1- desery es to be answered. In fact, to not dirt-1 tly answer his attacks (unduly does not desery e. Frankly. I think his position is wiong and obstinately giyeit all the he's had to lat e. But there?s nothing ignoble or as litany libertarian theorists 1 hoose#is a form ol ension he demeaning about It. l?utlingr the pacilism primiple in one's mind seems to hate the ellett of ingesting a drug. Hashes ol brilliant insight and otherwise inconceyiable intimation and intention result, but mostly what tomes out is a distorted iew ol reality. warped to the "straight" obseryet though it makes perfect sense to the Yet with titne and obseryations. the internal logic to the warp is disternible to the obsery er. Passing oyer the mutual appreciation section of LePeyre's reply?and we do concur in niuclt??one comes to the criticism. course it is assumed that one has read the New Libertarian Mani/min before reading this, but men so. a translation of LeFey're's ?warp factor" may help no end. First. as [111? as lecturing libertarians on integrity and making sure they know I'm not telling them to break natural law, I do not belieye a libertarian could possibly read and think otherwise. Perhaps some non-libertarian might see such a call to indiscriminate ?law-breaking." but I?m clearly not the one to reach those with such lack of reasoning ability. Perhaps we need anareho- therapists for those whose brains haye been turned to jelly by oyerdoses of statism? And while I may have been burned as often as in market transactions with alleged libertarians. have prepared appropriate ?White Lists" of untrustworthy types for sale. As whitelisting is deyelo'ped by the cotuner-economy. the rip-ol'l' rate should rapidly tall. I consider the bums l'y'e t?T'iperient?ed to be start-11p costs of the agora. l-Cl?yyre?s point about legal action being out of the question after a black- "lill'lset burn has a strange ring. Surely legal action is an! a; the question for in any market. while. grey or black. In fact. even though not in general. New Libertarians urge (lelettsiye and restoratiye 1981 Strategy oftheNeu'Libri-tan'a" Air Ian? 28 entirely Staff's legal possibb ?Hum.? you Ih-ll-ll as "It? It aggression as the Stale; rallii um. State to elitnindlt? a mugger ts hke Satan to esort'ise an imp lg?mthl. ()ur parting of the where fries l'e sees "gtmd [h of'the State?and that ties in with his later latni that agorists would neede books system to restoration of property. What he seems to I: - ?.k'gdl Tsew Libertarians and most other .ntarthist lilx'rtarians is that itat?iotmltutntm of the "business of justit'e" by the State. 'l'here are State could hate in totmnon with a market agent?s bet-ause the former m? [pgj?dgtf? with stuns! written in the law. Market restorers and Driller?): will follow Natural law. with is (li'?'t?t?l?t?tl like arty phenomenon in nature bi- obseryation and the natural optimal one among "ninth-applied Mosing onward. we find a paean to hear. hear. I Now when Le Feyere thallenges me on he does strike tothe quirk. He claims that at't'ept the right to one?s life and property and then deny it loan aggressor. But if] yielded up the property of the rittint to the aggressor?ohm I could restore it?t?fmt I would be yiolating my t?ottsistenry. As far as lam eont'erned. the aggressor has opened the boumlary of his property (not just ?land" property we're talking about) and opened a passage up to the stolen property whirl: is not wit/tin his boundary rz'rr whit'h reseal alter regaining the missing item(s). The aggressor has toluntarily to open that path. The victim has agreed to nothing. Should the it tint neglet't any retrietal of her or his goiulsJ hare the right delegated to do so. I he sant tion of the aggressor is giren to the yietini the moment the aunt}: is initiated by the will of the LeFeyre ehiioses to look at the world from the irrational eyes ?mm b?ho wishes to initiate his action and be free of its ('onsequent'es. I hare "0 Intention of faking reality for the tiolence-initiators. Perhaps he ran evade apprehension his theft or blow as one who jumps a (?flaw be waf?ted away on a strong updraft: but the natural consequences of' gravity is falling [0 ones death and the natural t'onsequenee of inyasion is reslol?uli?n- . (Elia-r where lyef'ey re and .1 differ, I see no rock and bleegs i)sate action. If one beats onels tsa glies Striking those ?'hbc'igll'esdt?ghts yiolatedr lhe same natural d? PP privilege is ?513):th do defend themselves surceslsfullyir . -1erislit' was preventing the er. feudalistn?Ayhose prime t. quasi?religious mys'ilieau' himself against-the lords ?2m has [he ?rt-iminal" lost his rt' fits 0r: the Iptm'er fl" nert'll' has talled to gain any in 2ft I make It appear thus?the ert?mtna . Nor is this the the ?1 his eyel' en to disarm [h the Sit-lost. lhe argument of the '51-'11? ?cs it use would defend themselyes. Substituting them-?if Inan- is only one I - -- - - 'l'herehawht'w 'h . p0} used and . al't' Preylsel)? bu- - V. haw denoum-m] hat il'ists as tounter-revolution I.ll *rtar" duh.- they sert' - 1- pint. Sim?t' MM, We ??15 tonmjm. ?mm! Hr?- . .t I State at .l rat . . . 10mm?. L?ittept hinnat'} and lighting the .?stat: at: a Hall attuall?t- talk . kn?. allies. But it met happi? . 5 anan lusts from eliminating the State when tllt?) [hill [he 29 11 Alliance #1 1931 u! Libertari? Trait 5 I the slaughter and I. (I I A IJll itt'l'it 1? . ht. Mill-[which tolttiltnes. its: State Sfi?i- 1. 'llt' State-em et'ywhett. 111' In" "Ireltahilitatitm" 1m. thought ton . ut?t't'walc to .Stallt- we [ind horror on LeFevre's part me And as we mow ??lv estate a victimIll [ethnology could use . . -- 'Iostn an 0][hict'ipplt?il and dvnn,r and not obscenity ol 1 blects . 1 . I ??de his victim with the ability to restore httnor her. I hen?: ndi'tnal at ersion to biological lab practices and gleefully ?lCl?d stroke! LeFev-re can live with himsell and the dying ?cum 5 gasps if he would not do so. . . . . (lid not have anything agency; he had it's enemy. the btate. . ?51: far. then. we deal with world-views based on defence as p30 15m. l'he debate is anti lair. But then seems to dump the Marq'UIs What he sneaks in is the problem ol error: of misinterpretation of evidence and being deliberately misled. My response 15 (it quoque.? Suppose Lelievre is blowing up stumps on his farm and was led to believe no one was near the stump?perhaps quite reasonably. Perhaps someone parachuted down in the seemingly sale lield and borne! l.el"evre discovers the mangled remains. .tnd what if someone wants to get rid of an enemy and leads them to the next stamp to go. then rushes to assure LePey re that all is clear? ?tt'hy should I feel any more problem with errors in restoration then he sees in any other problems in living? And why should he then bring it up? Surely we will always do our best to act safely. The world is constructed such that human action will always contain the risk of accidental violence done to another. In the agortst world. prompt restoration would be the best indicator of accidental nature. and David Friedt?t}. US ISpiudIits ousands 0? Fears?lawyers. - 1 an to1 the means is.? by every definition I know. what manning?: ?Sills.- only other possibility ts having ends and means Pr??lsely that in restoration and restitution be arbitrarily imposed; I oppose used liliestabliqh I. aptlu at some length. showing how the market can be anything else I also explicitly oppose any Imposition of ?nes or "CSlitutjgn ?ms (ineletit'ent .yalue over what deterrent is naturally in full Lel?evre to sup; iest It Interest and apprehensmn). Hardly cricket of And to trlosei?ol?l? . . establishing finally. .\ew Libertarians have no ?insistence of mould hat it. In fact '1 file. perpetrator i? the t?t?iltte" as no Tights (?it?l'iq'inyi' .Uantfeslo Insists on the opposite?- _Ias rights is to be restored: It"; ual ever. ()nly that which the victim already Let Loire?? '1 1 . ?tilt no less than her or his rightful property?all of held up pinball:billing? tor a change: what git es him the. right to git. especially to the one wtto deserves it least? a metal imperative. lor punishment. storation IS and restoration ts storation Anything but re hat restitution all iornts?-rejects re and execution. the aggressor?s My heart a restitutiom?restoration i 3.. 1981 Strategy ufthe Neu- Libertarian Alliance #1 :5 Limit tie.? [mm mm pic-Hum aldlt?nlt?nls and .n'lidcs .md .K'Ull?dtit?s for [civic 1 {Inc quarry! uh I'm ~11.1lrg\. In hut. in i1 (rufir [endorse and pant?;- 1: 1.33 {ht which?. mail. I urge nlht'r New {fuc'mt'g-xts \ci! Inc-1 If [ht-x haw: 4m min]! for .1 in the: Ihu?u- ?lining: In sell in [his uu'tit'al {heft .zft.? .1 in! true! uzqumch. Herc. is right. h'nfi t-f? :mIm?m in Ital-.1 [hr imild ihnught v.1- shared?gels :thr the: end IilHt? .uc Iltwr mum! In primlitm. They are the nil?413?; miluincu?n! .m inning imiixidual. Pt?l'itui. lutluding [ht -t h\ ~huulii 1m. wring, the Phase 3 In Phase 4 trunsiliun mat-:1: ruinintinn "bruin" .un ul m) piiluiplm when I make it rimInitiate [he xiulvmc without fail. If] -mit :Lu .u ilh i: much mm. he: .a hunt [Jdl Hist: but il'I ?ee ?n-muw I .JIH uith uiulcmc- [ht'll I am simply a1 UMJIG ?1-bit! tint hau- 1m.- xhl'ink Itnm [he agnl'isl . \Inicmt} .1111 nm ?ilk-u n1 huh plutiitldhitsimilar path .41 . . Edmungs has a. . .. . pair. fun-3:522:31 1hr: c211 tin?It'g. UH ?Hun: in .nt ill-using stimuli. Limilmliu uilh Stum-lritisl argument ruunrl similarly. [to In hum r19: ht;- reten- In rm lhr-mgh rmudcr raiding? I muc- him In ?Hit? ilix butkg I an: nu {hunt n! mipmiliun n! plillLiplt'HI the ml is self- umimtin Inn. uf (l-ruu- mum better than 1 \mi 1 n: :11in [hr [xi-cur .m Haul 1hr mint 11w Iii- It?lt'lmlilli punt? In gallwr [mm hlnauur ht Id? {clminik lrI'L-xlc'x itlcu Illt? war unli' [ht tilt-nu against ?the! Shuts quu LIV. umqutwls in man u! .umn ha! n! the u~i1ing~ ut inn-11ml iI - hum ITEHIR ?huh-x Rcbc? luv-.Cti in histun's .unplc ihmhin: ?hut of [In- in lu'luml. and llmluncl? mu It'll [inm in man slulc'x history - - 'l .- inn In iHlill'a (Ti\i Win? In ?Hill's .-. Dan ul Ragc? and and (lune. Ihh burl It-plx ia ul lxl-m 11's l'nimicri uiih llu- melulgc in fillcr hum hi~ gt?llt'l'nih' huh bin-Hanan muL.1hc duck-m n! [we mm hunch ?.11?qu um ul. plilt' Im II him is in unu'lutlc iliicr the .i-s-muli In Labour?and full Hunk ?Samuel Edward Konkin ilJ?\ In din: fittph 'lh.ip- (hr ll It: \rj. rinuun JImufp d? (3.11th it nut? In Rulhlmul?il uill .uu li-wcl with: NOTES: Km!) n?.uhmillml an it mm tins u! the Km Mam/min im' imlihinn in Strategy Libertarian Alliancr hut mu humped Ihluugh Int up.? c. II slum Ihc "can issue u! New Libertarian magazine (#1111. R. {i1 Instilulc's sulmmsinn may enjoy mlicr .I ximilm' Luv. l'litlt? puripht'l'print IJIRH. .Iml Luau! nmn: (JR ROMAN 31 Alliance #1 1981 . the New Libertarian Strateg} ?1 The New Altruism: A Critique of the New Libertarian Ma nifesto by Erwin S. (Filthy Pierre) Strauss lnve little quarrel with the basic vision of societv I: I ibm'tm?imt .?tlanifcsm: ?an advanced counter-e presented the free societv" (note on page 7). I also in you New conomic svstem (approaching) agree that the ?free society" itsell~ would be unstable for the reasons vou give in paragraph 2 on page 8. How agoric activity broad ens from indivi towards the explicit business ente grand through 21 ?Movement." a problem arises. sortie point, the link betwee- individual puts into the activitv (in terms of scarce re monev] and what the individual c- freedom} begins to break increasingly public goods. svstem as it nears the free not contribute scarce resources tow . 'l'herefore, it is dif?cult to rationallvjustil'v rwould involve incurring a significant cost In exchange microscopice increase in the expected value I freedom) to be received in the uture. 1 seems to me that the to contribut those motivated by Th living their lives for th ever. as pro? rprises, eta. continental what an sources. such as dual actions, pursuit of strategy down. The er-economic those who did those who did. aking ribution, which recognize that my rational self-interest in eless, up I most ef?cacious appease those values. 'arce resources devoted to su _a point where further appeasemei ?3 l. ephemeral Ices and ret down to wor . [um categorical . pursuing more subs 1' opposed to] opposed to - I nmoralitv-?- ch appeasement in it ol those 32 1981 Strategy ufthe New Libertarian Al." exist in the it is enjos ed In spet ilit peopt?a I he whose LiberIF F?m hurn etthet totnatns noltotlt besides thou. other people. It the hunter. then tout earliet ??"t?ltlem Istll. "For [lose who wush onh to lne their lites as tree as 23 economit' libertat'iattistn is stillitient. mote is needed." Hui Hi. I ?lumen-i .l'herelorc, you must lull-[1 lot a libel-ts to he "?ltm?tl In. ?um" \lnu Hun-a you are prepared tot-spend tout st an to 1' :1 This is our asit' ol altruism again. 4 the lat talk.? The appeal to altruism is also prominent in the pin hes on ?Hu- \l . the Libertarian Lett toupons. In ?Our Enemy, Hu- "donations of ent'out'agetneut." and ask me to "n work" through linant'ial tontrihution. In the Mum/Mm, sou ask "express material supptn't lor MLI. Attion!" .?tll ol these ?ml? [it'll-ill? and about: the lee, with nothing to he delivered . . - ..tn Ill nl? return. A similar altruistit' tone emerges from unit your nrmur. All this creates- a problem of inronsistents' of means and ends. it Movement supported ht altruistit' means is unlikely to ?insistently. seek a libertarian sotiett. In tad. laeking the guide of profit. the supporters ol sut It a Mort-men! are unlikely.- to consistently pursue any long-term goal. llistot'itallt'. sut'h Mmetnents gratitate towards the ringing; \lanilesto. the stirring rally. and other lot'ttls ol artimt that provide immediate emotional gratilit?ation?ratlter than to forms ol artinn that lead to long-term t'hattge. 1Your at'tis'ities er the past det'atle m' seem to have run along these lines. the views you dist'uss. my own rlosest to those you eite In the Page 7 for Harry Browne and. of Louise. the ones [or the Iabotmmu 'rotn tue at tit-lit) Fairlas mluate (8 issues [1 year] silo; I #232. Fairfax. VA 22031: t?ilt'l] Ina}. hut needn't, tontrihute up r. Browne goes in t's ties-t ol' human trrenotts tune on four pages per issue to be printed unedited}. Howet mm? in denouncing t'tmpet'atis'e at'tion. taking a burst lit-hell . nature: every 1wile is a nagging shrew. et'et'y business partner ts a it I leech. rtr. action ran he atlsantageous il? participants and de?nes the relationship (12mm! Browne offers "no overall strategy" for social t'hange ts no more . 'l ?wlist's than is a Christian's t'nt?llplitlnl that atheism offers no complaint that anart'hism otters no henewlt?l? ?mu" ?m MM Iill-ht such things, Ul'tiourse. but delivering them. he sutntn; ?bu? ll tl men think pursuit ol? your grand strategy will delner a libertarian i1 isn't an ellit?at'ious use ol most people?s start I . The process ol"'outllanking the state with let-httology." [as souls Comm-tie" position. isn't a prest'ription to sit bar. It and watt it"?l' 1mm "and" happen. Rather. it tourses ol lollowed l?rulit during and alter the detline ol' the state?'ili'l? lmuil?" tl' ll?. hasten that deeline. Your unsupported iuus'alitm ?l ll?. statists to t'onl'ound these approat'hes seems deleatist to me. It lot i"it?llenuity. lor exatIIPle. to present the Pilmm?ll ll :1 tali ll?lit'tl llt' ununarlt'l?l is 5 Strategy of the New Libertarian Alliance #1 1931 33 non. he of that spread will hardly. be pure libertarianism, but it almost tetlainh will sound the death knell lot the state as we know it?il' the Slate doesn't sm ulnli lit'lnl ?Erwin S. ?Filthy Pierre" Stratus March 193l Reply to Filthy Pierre by SE. Konkin While the third pole oi libertarianism as represented by the Libertarian Connection may not have been around as long as Rothbard and LeFevre, to one who entered the Movement during the (ire-at Conversion of 1969 as I did. the three Comm-[ion stars??Skye ?Natalee Hall" and ?Filthy Pierre"? were almost as established and respected a view. To an extent the Connection position differs from both and is clearly independent; also. Connectors are usually more l'uttire-oriented. heavily into technologv and market innovations. In fact. if Rothhard seeks to revolutionise us to Liberty and LeFevre to pacify us there?{rude simpli?cations to be sure?4Jonnectms want to innovate us there. Since "Slave" and ?Natalee" have gone on to do superb work in that area under their real names. l-?ilthy Pierre has become editor of the libertarian APA and the closest to a statulattl?hearer and spokesperson that the ultra-individualist (ionnertion viewpoint has. To begin with. I'm proud to have Pierre's basic agreement with the New Libertarian ?vision." \t'hile I have been little influenced direct!)- by the Connection and its contributors. having read only one issue before he became editor (which was after publication}. sotne of their better ideas have undoubtedly liltered into general movement lore and I most gratefully acknowledge any which inspired New Libertarian and New Libertarian .Hnnifesto?s more original and innovative presentations of the libertarian case. So let's check out our few differences. Pierre is vigilant against the Libertarian Movement re-collectivizing into a potential State. Hear. hear: he is welcome to be a permanent paid watchdog in the pages of New Libertarian. SNLA or wherever. I too fear such a possible. occurence and see it alreadv happening in the guise of the LP. But I am afraid he sees altruism where none was intended. and. I submit, none is present. l}iscarding one side issue. I consider "public goods" 3 problem for (Ihicago economists to dwell on?like theologians counting angels on Pierre does proffer the verv service I was looking for in requesting critiques. He discovered an area that not only was unclear in expressing but which I had not yet realized was a problem. My thanks to his contribution to the clarity of the cause. What I did make clear is that there is personal freedom and freedom for a societv at large including oneself. l?ierre's comment on Browne?with which I almost totally agreeI?conlirtns that. 1What I failed to make clear is that making .mrieh' freer has ininwriinte rewards in lowering risk. Thus. onejudges how much a contribution to agorist activity reduces one?s counter-economic risks and [Continued on page two]