I recently read The Death of Politics, a wonderful article written by Karl Hess, the former libertarian activist, editor, and Barry Goldwater speechwriter. In the article, which was first published in the June 1969 issue of Playboy Magazine, Hess makes the assertion that “as governments continue to fail around the world, as more millions become aware that government never has and never can humanely and effectively manage men’s affairs, government’s own inadequacy will emerge, at last, as the basis for a truly radical and revolutionary movement.” He claims that both the left and the right are self-interest entities that govern only to “revise current methods of acquiring and wielding political power.” On the contrary, he claims that radical and revolutionary movements do not revise but revoke; their revocation being politics itself.
Hess’ article is written as a libertarian manifesto of sorts, distinguishing old politics from new by advocating traditional libertarian positions such as a voluntary military draft, opposition to the war on drugs, and a strict defense of pure, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism. He accurately and wonderfully describes the libertarian movement as a “civil rights movement,” in that it “seeks civil liberties for everyone” and “builds diversified power to be protected against government.”
While Hess is able to clearly espouse his viewpoints by providing compelling arguments, his unwavering libertarian philosophy quickly descends into an idealized form of anarcho-capitalism.
Hess naively discusses the future stability and survival of the nation-state, going so far as to say that liberals and conservatives alike share the common belief that nations “really mean something” and both ascribe to the “magical creation of communities of men that require sovereignty and sanction.” Furthermore, sounding like an international studies undergraduate at a liberal arts college, Hess claims that neither liberals nor conservatives can bear the thought of “giving up government and going it alone as residents of a planet rather than a country.” That’s right…break out the Che t-shirts.
Hess goes on to ask the question: “Will men continue to submit to rule by politics, which has always meant the power of some men over other men, or are we ready to go it alone socially, in communities of volunteerism, in a world more economic and cultural than political, just as so many now are prepared to go it alone metaphysically in a world more of reason than religion?” Furthermore, Hess essentially maintains the belief that every community should be “one of volunteerism to the extent that the community lives for and through it’s own people and does not force others to pay its bills.” In Locke’s “state of nature,” this theory may hold up. In reality, it is literally impossible for two major reasons:
1.) Government has gotten so big and the American public has become so reliant on its services that limited government advocates can only slow down it’s growth as opposed to actually repealing its meddlesome laws; and
2.) However large or small they shall be, it is the nature of man to form communities. Within these communities, there naturally tends to arise a leader.
Man can never fully escape at least some form of minimalist governance. Hess’s ideal community can simply never be.
I do agree with Hess, to a certain extent, that yes, communities should remain ones of volunteerism. All too often, as a nation, we willingly sacrifice our state sovereignty at the expense of getting things done “faster” and more “efficiently,” preferring instead to confide in an intrusive federal government as opposed to raising the funds through a private charity or local community action. However, Hess takes his viewpoint to another level, essentially arguing in favor of a collapse of the current system of sovereign states, instead opting for a community of self-sovereignty. My argument is that self-sovereignty can still be maintained under a citizen-oriented democracy with provisions in place that give its citizens a voice and the ability to reform.
The fact that libertarians maintain a well-deserved skepticism towards government does not mean that government cannot be helpful in our cause for liberty and individual freedom. The relationship between the citizenry and the government is a social contract in which the federal government is established to protect our liberty, our freedom, and our lives. If the government is not fulfilling its obligation to it’s citizens (which may be argued is the case today), then the citizen has the choice to either reform their federal government or to opt out of the contract, that is, to emigrate to another country. Hess takes his viewpoint one-step further in that he advocates leaving the fold altogether. This is, in relation to the federalist system of the United States, an anti-federalist position in the sense that he is negating the contract between the states (the community) and the federal government.
Perhaps Thomas Paine most accurately describes man’s relationship with his government: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Whether or not you believe government is evil, the unrelenting truth is that we have to work within the system as opposed to outside of it. As libertarians, classical liberals, paleoconservatives, or whatever we call ourselves these days, we often tend to focus too often on the evil as opposed to the necessary. To the radicals that Hess so intimately appeals, it is not a concession of beliefs or principles to accept that fact that government is here to stay; it is merely the reality of the situation.
Powered by FireStats