We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
That line, especially the bit about the “cult of the omnipotent state,” has been the subject of many internal battles within the party at conventions. There is a group within the party and the broader libertarian movement that believe that language prevents us from growing as a party. After all, the two legacy parties don’t have that kind of language and they win elections.
I come from the libertarian wing of the Libertarian Party. I’ve been a Libertarian since I was 10 or 11 years old and my father would take me to meetings of the Maricopa County Libertarian Party . I vote for Ernie Hancock when he runs for Chair because I’ve known him longer than anyone else in the party. I’ve never been anything other than a big-L Libertarian.
You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.
Lee Wrights once said, “We can make a difference by being different.” I believe that. The Libertarian Party is still much smaller than the two legacy parties. We cannot beat them by playing the game on their terms and by their rules.
This is not to say that our candidates should not be professional in appearance, nor that we can ignore the mechanics of running political campaigns. But it is to say that we can’t just be “Republicans who mean it,” or “Democrats who really believe in civil liberties.” If all we offer is a slightly better version of a legacy party, most voters won’t risk their vote for something slightly better when the legacy party candidate could, you know, win.
We can win by being the only party that supports actual freedom. Social freedom. Economic freedom. All of your freedoms. All of the time. Without exception.
These strikes are legal, they are ethical and they are wise.
According to a memo obtained by NBC, the Obama Administration has decided that they can kill anyone overseas with a drone strike, including American citizens, with no trial, charge, or any due process protections at all. The Democrats don’t have a problem with this, since it’s a Democrat making this unilateral decision to kill people. Oddly, the Republicans don’t have a problem with it either , possibly because they want to have that power in 2016.
Libertarians are the only ones who have a problem with it. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution clearly states, “nor shall any person be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” There is no more stark and frightening example of “the cult of the omnipotent state,” than the idea that it’s okay to murder people drone missiles as long as it’s the President doing it and he’s pretty sure you’re a bad guy.
I’m a Libertarian and I challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual, and that most certainly includes the right to not be murdered by the government with no due process at all.
This article was posted earlier on our open thread. Mr. Sarwark is an attorney from Colorado. He has served on the Libertarian National Committee on the Judicial Committee in 2004 and remains on that committee.
18 responses so far ↓
1 Matt Cholko // Feb 8, 2013 at 2:02 am
Like!
2 Be Rational // Feb 8, 2013 at 2:32 am
You should have left Ernie Hancock out of it.
Otherwise, well done.
3 Oranje Mike // Feb 8, 2013 at 10:02 am
The reference was just.
Good work.
4 Robert Capozzi // Feb 8, 2013 at 11:15 am
A memo is not the rule of law.
An illegal killing has NOTHING to do omnipotence. If it does, then we are all potentially “omnipotence.”
These sorts of drone killings are inappropriate and deeply dysfunctional, and are another example of why this country needs a new direction and a liberty party of consequence. Wild overstatements like CotOS relegate the LP to the fringes, an own goal if ever there were one.
5 Jill Pyeatt // Feb 8, 2013 at 12:04 pm
I would like the LP to take a strong, unwavering stand against drones. That should be one issue we should all be able to get behind.
6 fillmore frugal // Feb 8, 2013 at 12:09 pm
cut the budget, starve the program
7 Krzysztof Lesiak // Feb 8, 2013 at 12:29 pm
Great title, and great article as well.
8 Nicholas Sarwark // Feb 8, 2013 at 5:19 pm
@4:
A violation of the rule of law through extrajudicial killing is bad; the blind devotion to state power that has people tripping over themselves to say that it’s okay is what defines the cult of the omnipotent state.
At this point, you are the only person I know of who considers the “cult of the omnipotent state” language in the Libertarian Party’s statement of principles to be an own goal. Especially in light of the state worship being engaged in by Yoo, Bolton, Carney, Toure, et al.
9 Alaska Constitution Party // Feb 8, 2013 at 8:58 pm
The Constitution Party also opposes these illegal premeditated murders via drones or any other unconstitutional usurpation.
10 Robert Capozzi // Feb 9, 2013 at 6:12 am
8 NS: A violation of the rule of law through extrajudicial killing is bad; the blind devotion to state power that has people tripping over themselves to say that it’s okay is what defines the cult of the omnipotent state.
me: That’s interesting. I’m curious if those who support these drone killings have themselves said, “Yes, I am a member of the cult of the omnipotent state.” Have they?
My guess is they don’t. They may justify the practice in their own minds. But I don’t think they would say that the State summarily killing a US citizen in the US is justified. Apparently, drone-strike advocates have an ability to compartmentalize such things.
Actually, it’s not for me so much the drone strikes, but the entire operation in south Asia and the ME that I object to. My guess is the Rs and Ds that support the drone strikes have so lost perspective due to their support of those wars that, after a while, almost anything is OK by them. Odds are high that they’ve gone feral.
As for whether I am the sole person who thinks the CotOS language is an own goal, I can’t know.
But you might re-read your own essay, since you seem to think there are many Ls who share my view. A move in Portland to put CotOS out of its misery got a 3/4s vote, yes?
Few highlight the derangement of the CotOS language as much as I do, that seems true enough. It’s illustrative of the deeper dysfunction of deontological absolutism that so much L thought has been based on.
11 Robert Capozzi // Feb 9, 2013 at 7:44 am
8 ns: …the blind devotion to state power…
me: Another point on the linguistics of your view…IF you defined CotOS as “the blind devotion to A state power, specifically these sorts of killings by state agents,” I might see your point. You’d have an internally consistent view.
However, by saying “blind devotion to state power” without qualification, that implies that the “cult” members have no boundaries in their advocacy of state power. They would be totalitarian.
If you want to argue that Rs and Ds are totalitarian, you may. I see no evidence of that. I know no Big Brother-style social order advocates on the other teams. Yes, most of them are more-archists, surely. Totalitarians? Nope.
12 Be Rational // Feb 9, 2013 at 8:18 am
@12 RC
How much power does a state have to have at its disposal or exercise to become totalitarian? Is there a formula somewhere?
To me, the US Federal Government is very close to being a totalitarian state. Yes, it could be far worse, and we have terms and adjectives to describe even greater levels of evil. But, the US government is already an evil, fascist-socialist government. We are fast on the road to totalitarianism.
As to “the cult of the ominpotent state” … which you obsess on … you keep objecting to the two terms “cult” and “omnipotent.”
So …
“We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the State and defend the rights of the individual … ”
Better?
13 Robert Capozzi // Feb 9, 2013 at 10:23 am
13 br, no, I know of no formula. When I think “totalitarian,” I think 1984.
I would agree that the US is on the road to totalitarianism, but I disagree that it’s “close.” We surely agree the current direction is contra-indicated.
Your language tweak would certainly serve to make the LP explicitly nonarchist. As a TAAAList myself, I could read that as a directional statement rather than an abolitionist one, and I could probably abide with it. It does make it sound less like Hannibal Lecter, so propas to you.
However, most of those who call themselves “L” are neither nonarchist nor TAAAList, but rather explicitly “statists” of the minarcho sort. This would serve to further fringify the LP would be my guess, driving membership down from say 15K to 5K, or lower.
ATC, your proposal is contra-indicated, IMO.
14 Be Rational // Feb 9, 2013 at 10:59 am
@14 RC My question regarding the revised SOP intro without “… the cult of the omnipotent … ” wasn’t a suggestion for change, I just wanted to separate your objection to some of the words vs. the whole.
I see no need nor any reason to either change or abandon the SOP.
15 Robert Capozzi // Feb 9, 2013 at 11:00 am
ns, you quote: “You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked.” – Sun Tzu, The Art of War
me: Help us understand why you chose to include this quote. On its face, it seems like something a moderate-in-positioning (though radical in inquiry) like me would say. It’s quite easy to attack extremist positions, seems to me. In this case, the government’s behavior IS quite extremist, as is the SoP.
16 Robert Capozzi // Feb 9, 2013 at 11:10 am
15 br, yes, I got that. That’s the thing with language, it requires contextual and subjective interpretation.
17 Nicholas Sarwark // Feb 9, 2013 at 4:09 pm
@16: I was referring to Libertarian positioning. We cannot be attacked by the Ds and Rs on opposition to drone murder or opposition to war. We can control that position and build from there.
18 Robert Capozzi // Feb 9, 2013 at 4:30 pm
NS, yes. However, Ls – to the extent the R or Ds ever pay attention to us – could easily attack Ls as weak on defense.
This doesn’t trouble me much. If, however, some Ls think it is “totalitarian” to have a national defense, that does position Ls in a weak, unattractive, fringe place.
Leave a Comment