Reform Is Not Freedom

[PAF]

By Jacob G. Hornberger
September 27, 2023


When I discovered libertarianism more than 40 years ago, the revelation that shocked me the most was that I wasn’t living in a free society. All my life, especially since the first grade in the public schools to which my parents were forced to send me, I had been inculcated with the belief that I lived in a free country. And here I was — in my late 20s — breaking through the inches-thick indoctrination that encased my mind and realizing that it was all a lie.

It’s got to be an exhilarating and exciting feeling when one is living in a genuinely free society. When I discovered the truth more than 40 years ago, I decided right then and there that I wanted to live a life of freedom before I passed from this life.

The biggest infringements on freedom are the Welfare-State and the National-Security-State way of life under which we live. In order to achieve a genuinely free society, it is necessary to dismantle these two massive governmental structures and replace them with a structure that is based on the principles of the free market, voluntary charity, and a limited-government republic.

Unfortunately, long ago some libertarians threw in the towel and gave up on achieving freedom. They convinced themselves that the welfare-warfare state way of life was simply too big, too powerful, and too deeply engrained in the United States and, therefore, that it would be futile to try to eradicate it.

Therefore, they resigned themselves to coming up with reforms that were designed to improve, fix, reform, or modify the welfare-warfare-state infringements on liberty under which we live. Oftentimes, such libertarians described these reform efforts as “advancing liberty.”

But such reform efforts have never been about advancing liberty. That’s because liberty requires the removal of infringements on liberty, not the modification, improvement, or reform of infringements on liberty.

Let’s imagine we are living in 1855 Alabama.

One group of libertarians calls for ending slavery. In doing so, they are making the case for liberty because the only way that slaves could be set free is by immediately dismantling, abolishing, or repealing slavery.

Another group of libertarians, however, takes a different position. They say that slavery is too deeply engrained in America, especially in Alabama. Moreover, they point out, slavery is in the Constitution. They say that we libertarians who are calling for the immediate abolition of slavery are being impractical. They also say that the slaves are not ready for freedom. We have to settle for reform, they exclaim, which means such reform proposals as fewer lashings, reduced working hours, better food, and improved healthcare for the slaves and perhaps the gradual phaseout of slavery over the next 50 years or so.

Would those reforms improve the lot of the slaves? No doubt about it. But there is still something wrong with them: They are not freedom. They are reforms of slavery. To achieve freedom, it is necessary to remove, not reform, infringements on freedom.

Over the years, I have seen some libertarians decide to dedicate their lives, fortunes, and efforts to reforming the welfare-warfare state serfdom under which we live, especially with such socialist and interventionist programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schooling, monetary policy, immigration, foreign policy, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, the NSA, the drug war, Covid, and more.

But ever since I discovered libertarianism, welfare-warfare state reform has never appealed to me. I want to be free. That means continuing to make the case for removing, not reforming, the welfare-warfare-state infringements that prevent us from living the one life we were given in a genuinely free society.



Reprinted with permission from The Future of Freedom Foundation.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/09/...s-not-freedom/

[Anti Federalist]

Let’s imagine we are living in 1855 Alabama.

One group of libertarians calls for ending slavery. In doing so, they are making the case for liberty because the only way that slaves could be set free is by immediately dismantling, abolishing, or repealing slavery.

Another group of libertarians, however, takes a different position. They say that slavery is too deeply engrained in America, especially in Alabama. Moreover, they point out, slavery is in the Constitution. They say that we libertarians who are calling for the immediate abolition of slavery are being impractical. They also say that the slaves are not ready for freedom. We have to settle for reform, they exclaim, which means such reform proposals as fewer lashings, reduced working hours, better food, and improved healthcare for the slaves and perhaps the gradual phaseout of slavery over the next 50 years or so.

Had the reformers ideas been followed there would have been no civil war and the death and destruction that came from that.

There would have been no Abe Lincoln and GOP.

There would have been no creation of the Leviathan state in DC.

There would have been no first of its kind national income tax.

There would have been no draft riots in NYC.

There would have been no KKK.

There would have been no Jim Crow.

There would have been no perpetual black underclass and it's constant autistic violence, as most chattel slaves, once freed, would have had the option to repatriate back to Africa.

That's just right off the top of my head.

There is a time for bold and immediate action.

There is also a time for slow and steady pressure to reform.

Our enemies have been working on the revolution we currently find ourselves immersed in and losing badly at, for 80 years, at least.

Doesn't sound like me, I know, but as I get older I start to see the wisdom of some things I used to dismiss out of hand.

[acptulsa]

Had the reformers ideas been followed there would have been no civil war and the death and destruction that came from that.

There would have been no Abe Lincoln and GOP.

There would have been no creation of the Leviathan state in DC.

There would have been no first of its kind national income tax.

There would have been no draft riots in NYC.

There would have been no KKK.

There would have been no Jim Crow.

There would have been no perpetual black underclass and it's constant autistic violence, as most chattel slaves, once freed, would have had the option to repatriate back to Africa.

That's just right off the top of my head.

If government had implemented the "reforms" we could easily have had all that and more. Could have and would have.

There is a time for bold and immediate action.

And as a general rule, that time is after you have picked a direction to go that isn't down the same old garden path. And top-down solutions will continue to be the proverbial garden path unless and until God decides it's time for us to do things right.

[Snowball]

The indolence and gullibility of libertines and libertarians is why we are here.

[Anti Federalist]

If government had implemented the "reforms" we could easily have had all that and more. Could have and would have.

And as a general rule, that time is after you have picked a direction to go that isn't down the same old garden path. And top-down solutions will continue to be the proverbial garden path unless and until God decides it's time for us to do things right.

I just keep going back to the gun rights movement.

I've been in that fight for over 40 years now and in 1983 it looked hopeless.

It's been an awful lot of three steps forward, two steps back, betrayals, backsliding, compromises and maddeningly slow progress.

But significant progress nevertheless.

How much better off would we be if all rights had been defended as vigorously and consistently?

Our enemies excel at the "long game".

We need to do it better.

[Matt Collins]

Unfortunately, long ago some libertarians threw in the towel and gave up on achieving freedom. They convinced themselves that the welfare-warfare state way of life was simply too big, too powerful, and too deeply engrained in the United States and, therefore, that it would be futile to try to eradicate it.

On the federal level, yeah it is impossible to stop the leviathan when it is backed by an infinite money printer. Until the currency becomes worthless and/or the federal government collapses under its own weight, then there really isn't much that can be done on the federal level other than trying to slow down the bus on the road to hell.

The state and local level can be a much different story depending on the political environment of one's locality. Will NY or IL or CA ever pass sweeping pro-gun legislation? No probably not. But other states could and have done so for example.

Therefore, they resigned themselves to coming up with reforms that were designed to improve, fix, reform, or modify the welfare-warfare-state infringements on liberty under which we live. Oftentimes, such libertarians described these reform efforts as “advancing liberty.”

This is known as putting lipstick on a pig. He is correct here that we shouldn't try to make government better or more efficient, we should be trying to eliminate it's involvement in our lives. However don't get this confused with taking a step in the right direction.

Let’s imagine we are living in 1855 Alabama.

One group of libertarians calls for ending slavery. In doing so, they are making the case for liberty because the only way that slaves could be set free is by immediately dismantling, abolishing, or repealing slavery.

Another group of libertarians, however, takes a different position. They say that slavery is too deeply engrained in America, especially in Alabama. Moreover, they point out, slavery is in the Constitution. They say that we libertarians who are calling for the immediate abolition of slavery are being impractical. They also say that the slaves are not ready for freedom. We have to settle for reform, they exclaim, which means such reform proposals as fewer lashings, reduced working hours, better food, and improved healthcare for the slaves and perhaps the gradual phaseout of slavery over the next 50 years or so.

Here Jacob is confusing or conflating two separate things, not sure if on purpose. Yes of course these things should always be advocated for, but if you can accomplish lesser goals that still move things in your direction, then one should.

For example, the NFA isn't going to be repealed any time soon, but yet we have passed permitless and/or Constitutional Carry in about half the states. No it's not complete firearms freedom, but it's a step in the right direction.

[nobody's_hero]

Perhaps ironically, it was the abolitionists who eventually followed the least libertarian means of meeting their goals.

Which is another paradox the libertarians find themselves in, due to self-constraints placed upon themselves: the ends not justifying the means, and all.

Right or wrong notwithstanding, our oppressors do not place such constraints upon themselves. Regardless of moral arguments, it is important to understand, that is why they are much more efficient at meeting their goals.

[Matt Collins]

Perhaps ironically, it was the abolitionists who eventually followed the least libertarian means of meeting their goals.

Which is another paradox the libertarians find themselves in, due to self-constraints placed upon themselves: the ends not justifying the means, and all.

Right or wrong notwithstanding, our oppressors do not place such constraints upon themselves. Regardless of moral arguments, it is important to understand, that is why they are much more efficient at meeting their goals.

Yes, and the book "Confrontational Politics" by R. L. Richardson explains this concept very well.

The progressives have no moral basis for the implementation of their agenda. They will do what it takes to get what they want, including lying, cheating, and stealing. To them the ends do indeed justify the means.

[Occam's Banana]

Reform Is Not Freedom
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/09/...s-not-freedom/
{Jacob G. Hornberger | 27 September 2023}

[...]

Meh. Seems more like a broadside aimed at CATO Institute types than anything else (not that there's anything wrong with that).

But Ron Paul said it better (bold emphasis added):

Purism is Practical
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...-is-practical/
{Ron Paul | 03 January 2016}

Those who advocate ending, instead of reforming, the welfare-warfare state are often accused of being “impractical.” Some of the harshest criticisms come from libertarians who claim that advocates of “purism” forgo opportunities to make real progress toward restoring liberty. These critics fail to grasp the numerous reasons why it is crucial for libertarians to consistently and vigorously advance the purist position.

First, and most important, those who know the truth have a moral obligation to speak the truth. People who understand the need for drastic changes in foreign, domestic, and, especially, monetary policy should not pretend that a little tinkering will fix our problems. Those who do so are just as guilty of lying to the public as is a promise-breaking politician. Attempting to advance liberty by lying is not just immoral; it is also a flawed strategy that is doomed to fail.

The inevitable failure of “reforms” that do not eliminate the market distortions caused by government intervention will be used to discredit both the freedom philosophy and its advocates. The result will be increased support for more welfare, more warfare, and more fiat money. Thus, those who avoid discussing the root causes of our problems, not those they smear as impractical purists, are the ones undermining liberty.

[...]

This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions. However, we must only settle for compromises that actually move us in the right direction. So we should reject a compromise budget that “only” increases spending by 80 percent. In contrast, a budget that actually reduces spending by 20 percent would be a positive step forward.

[...]

The Garrison references in the following are germane to Hornberger's slavery example:

As is so often the case, Ron Paul is exactly and entirely correct:

[...]

"This is not to suggest libertarians should reject transitional measures. A gradual transition is the best way to achieve liberty without causing massive social and economic disruptions." -- Ron Paul

As Murray Rothbard emphasized, we should always keep in mind the critical fact that there is no necessary contradiction between "absolutism in theory" and "gradualism in practice." In fact, gradualism in practice is fine. It has to be, if only because "gradualism" is almost always the only means by which things will actually change. As the great abolitionist (and absolutist) William Lloyd Garrison noted: "Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend."

But it is just as important to understand that acknowledging the place of gradualism in practice is NOT an excuse for eschewing absolutism in theory. Serious (indeed, fatal) problems arise when "absolutism in theory" is misguidedly discarded and "gradualism in practice" is promoted to "gradualism in theory." As Garrison also pointed out, "gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice."

Properly understood, "absolutism" (or "purism") and "gradualism" (or "pragmatism") should be regarded as complements, NOT as opposites.

Many absolutists and gradualists tend to forget this (assuming they ever understood it in the first place) ...

[Occam's Banana]

Perhaps ironically, it was the abolitionists who eventually followed the least libertarian means of meeting their goals.

Which is another paradox the libertarians find themselves in, due to self-constraints placed upon themselves: the ends not justifying the means, and all.

Right or wrong notwithstanding, our oppressors do not place such constraints upon themselves. Regardless of moral arguments, it is important to understand, that is why they are much more efficient at meeting their goals.

I don't think that's entirely fair or accurate.

Human chattel slavery is an abomination, and is among the most grotesque and egregious violations of libertarian principles (in both theory and practice).

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) is not a Non-Violence Principle - and when and where appropriate, defensive or retaliatory violence, up to and including deadly force, is permissible under (and even endorsed by) the NAP. It is thus entirely justifiable under libertarian principles to use violence to put an end to things such as human chattel slavery (or any other initiatory abrogations of human liberty).

A war on the southern states (or anyone else) for the purpose of ending human chattel slavery is not by itself objectionable on libertarian grounds (though perhaps it might be on other, prudential grounds, contingent upon circumstances). Unfortunately, the defense and preservation of human liberty was not at all the motivation of Lincoln, et al. in their persecution of the Confederates (although the abolishment of human chattel slavery did occur incidentally to that persecution). That the (true) abolitionists advocated violence against slavers is not at all objectionable from a genuinely libertarian perspective. However, insofar as any of them advocated for coercively aggressive means to achieve that violence (for example, by hypocritically supporting the implementation of military drafts, which are just another form of human chattel slavery), they were indeed in the wrong.

[Occam's Banana]

Seems more like a broadside aimed at CATO Institute types than anything else (not that there's anything wrong with that).

Speaking of which:

https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/s...43236706267196


The Liberty Movement’s Pro-War Fifth Column | Ted Galen Carpenter
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-libe...ro-war-fifth:f
{Mises Media | 27 September 2023}

Recorded in Nashville, Tennessee, on September 23, 2023.

[Brian4Liberty]

Speaking of which:

This has been apparent since Ron Paul first ran for office.

Students For Liberty was created as a globalist, interventionist alternative to Young Americans For Liberty. TReason, CATO and various objectivist groups all towed the interventionist line when it mattered the most. Fifth Columns indeed.

[Anti Federalist]

Angels dancing on the heads of pins.

I'd take any move toward liberty, slow and steady or rapid revolution.

With the exceptions I noted, I see nothing but a full blown, head first dash into a queeer, retarded version of Marxism.

Instead of phalanxes of tanks and goose stepping soldiers, mincing fairies and rainbow colored penis floats, distributing "throws" of rubbers and travel size tubes of anal sex lube.