COLUMN: Libertarians value rights over larger government

---

by Chris Click

---

However, I can't appreciate the fact that this widespread apathy exists alongside widespread dissatisfaction with the government. Nor can I appreciate the fact that the federal government's spending increases while most Americans want spending reduced. These two contradictions are explained only by the great influence of recent tradition.

Familiar aspects of the federal government such as the income tax, Social Security, the Selective Service and the War on Drugs are all products of this century. They constitute recent government tradition. Few public figures or organizations challenge these federal programs.

Libertarians challenge all of them. Libertarians ask: "Why are these recent additions to the federal government now considered by the Democrats, the Republicans and conventional wisdom to be unquestionably necessary?" and "Do these additions jive with America's founding ideals?"

The libertarian movement as well as the U.S. government is based on the rights of the individual. Libertarians have high regard for America's founders. The Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights are clear statements of respect for individual rights: "All men are created equal ... with certain inalienable rights" and "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." The current libertarian movement has emerged politically as the Libertarian Party (LP).

Heading the LP ticket for public office this November is Harry Browne, economic author and candidate for president in all 50 states.

In his widely available book, Why Government Doesn't Work , Browne proposes the "Great Trade": Give up your favorite federal programs, and never pay another dime of federal income tax. But what, in his opinion and in the Libertarian view, is so bad about most federal programs and their source of funding?

Though every Libertarian position can be derived from the respect for individual rights, examples of positions on current issues can make Libertarianism more easily understood. Let me return to my list of this century's federal program additions.

For each program, as articulated by David Bergland in Libertarianism in One Lesson, the conventional wisdom (CW) contrasts with the Libertarian view (LP):

Income Tax : CW -- Without it, not enough people would be willing to pay for the many important things which only government can provide. LP -- Taxation is immoral, indistinguishable from theft. Alternatives do exist for financing valid government programs that do not involve coercion but rather are based on respect for the rights of the people and on voluntary cooperation. Selling federal land, gold, silver and oil to create a national defense endowment fund is one alternative.

Social Security : CW --This program, though in financial trouble, must continue because older people are entitled to retire with dignity. LP -- Not at all a pension fund, the Social Security system is only a program whereby working people are taxed, and the money is immediately paid out to retired people. We must end the bankrupt system, pay off older workers and retirees by selling federal assets and relieve younger workers of the ever-increasing Social Security tax.

The Selective Service : CW -- A listing of names will be helpful in wartime if we need a draft. LP --The draft is slavery, plain and simple. Selective Service guarantees that a young, male American citizen who refuses to sign his name can be jailed.

The War on Drugs : CW -- This effort is our best defense against teen drug use, violent inner-city drug-dealing gangs and drug-related health care costs. LP -- All drugs should be legalized because the government has no business telling people what they can and cannot put into their bodies. The current War on Drugs is a replay of Prohibition during the 1920s. In both cases, peaceful citizens are branded as criminals, violent gangs arise who profit from illegal trade, and the law enforcement and judicial systems enforce drug laws at the expense of solving crimes with victims.

If most Americans value the rights of the individual more than government's wishes, why don't they vote for the candidates of the party which is dedicated on every issue to preserving these rights? I have discerned two ideas which keep people from acting on their dissatisfaction with the government.

The first is: "Today's complex world requires a complex government. It isn't feasible to base a society on the sole principle of individual rights." History has shown that as societies advance, those with high regard for individual rights actually fare much better than others. Take, for example, the respective fates of this century's major superpowers, the USA and the USSR. The USA, with fewer socialist policies, has prospered, while the USSR has withered.

The other idea blocking a vote for Harry Browne is: "He won't win, so why vote for him?" If we must look at the polls, the only candidate with a realistic chance of winning is Clinton. I especially urge those who want smaller government to forget the idea that a vote for Dole is the vote against Clinton. If you want "smaller government," vote to actually decrease its size.

Losers can have great effects on the fate of a nation. For instance, every plank of the 1928 Socialist Party's platform has since been adopted into American law. The LP hopes to have an equal and opposite effect on America.

I am happy to declare that I will vote for Harry Browne to stop the government's encroachment upon the rights of the individual.

This item appeared in the Opinion section of the November 1, 1996 issue.

Copyright © 1996 The Rice Thresher. All Rights Reserved.
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of:
The Rice Thresher, Rice University, 6100 Main, Houston, TX 77005-1892, USA.