t
-..
Is Government necessary?Conversations with businessmen, executives,
writers, and teachers who don't think so.
GOVERNMENTANARCHY ON THE RIGHTThere is a new philosophy being cultivated across the land. It calls itself libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, autarchy.Its followers make up a wide spectrum ofwell-educated, productive people. Theyinclude corporation presidents, executives, writers, students, and teachers.They share a vision of a completely freesociety, established on the principles ofindividual sovereignty and private ownership, without any government whatever.
No government? Why that's anarchy,you might say, and anarchy is a word thatinspires images of chaos, rampant lawlessness, and mass fear.
But what is peculiar about the "newanarchy" is that il claims to be far mQre
orderly and stable than the organizedchaos that is our present system of government. The new libertarians, as most ofthe new anarchists call themselves, contend that government, by its very nature,is the world's greatest creator of chaosand fear. They cite the wars of the pastfifty years that have brought catastropheto many enlightened nations: the extermination of millions of people by government acts; Vietnam; Watergate; policecorruption; rapacious taxation; inflation; ajustice system with medieval punishmentand retribution; the Supreme Court decision on obscenity that has caused instantconfusion and uncertainty; and oppressivelaws that reslricl our economic and social
-~/973~,3
lives. They see taxation as theft and military conscription as slavery. Most peopletolerate all this in the name of governmentand law and order. Their assumption isthat without government conditions couldget much worse.
But would Ihey? Has history not shownthat when governments are destroyedpeople not only manage to survive, butthe basic 'fabric of society is maintained?Does society not depend more on individual self-control for stability and prosperitythan on government control?
Perhaps "anarchy" is the wrong wordto apply to a system wherein individualfreedom and rights to property would bethe fundamentals of a governmentless society. The old-style anarchists, born in theearly days of the industrial era, championed individual freedom but thoughtproperty was that freedom's enemy. Theysaw government as enforcing the propertysystem, and therefore they went to greatextremes, including bombings and assassinations, to bring governments down.The old anarchists conceived the idealsociety to be communal, a concept thatcontradicted the notion of individualism.They fell into this contradiction becausethey lacked a proper understanding ofeconomics, of the connection betweenfreedom and property-between a man'sproductivity and the ownership of histools and products of his labor. They didnot understand the marketplace or theprinciples of human action :hat govern thecreation of wealth. They did not understand that a man could control his ownlife only to the degree that he could control his property.
But could not government be used in alimited way to protect individual freedomand property? Is not our present government a perversion of the ideal of limitedgovernment envisioned by our foundingfathers? To answer these and other questions about a society with zero government, I talked to some new anarchistsincluding a professor of economics inNew York, a best-selling writer in Vancouver, and a corporation president inWichita.
I talked in New York with Murray Rothbard, professor of economics at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn. I had methim ten years before, when he was already known for his radical anarchisticviews which then carried little weightamong political conservatives who believed in limited, constitutional governmen!. Ten years ago, a distrust of government, especially big government, wasall that Rothbard and political conservatives had in common. They generallyagreed that the less the government interfered with the economy, the better.Since then, Rothbard has written a number of books on economics and has become a spokesman for right-wing anarchism or, as he calls it, "anarcho-capitalism." He has acquired a large following,and his most recent book, For a New
I
I!I
Liverty (Macmillan, 1973), is bcing advertised as the "libertarian manifesto."
Rothbard told me that he had arrived athis ideology through the influences of hisparents and teachers, Living in N~w York,his mother and father were involved in theEmma Goldman anarchist movement before World War I; but later, during the Depression, his father became a free-market
, conservative. While in preparatory school,young Rothbard was greatly influencedby a history teacher who was free-marketoriented.
Pursuing the free-market argument toits conclusion, Rothbard could find nofunctions or govE'rnment that could not beperformed as well or better by privateagencies:
"I found in my arguments with social-.ists and interventionists that once youjustified the existence of the state, onceyou sanctioned the use of force to controlpeople, for no matter what reason, youcould justify taxation and every other eviland excess of the state."
For Rothbard, everything came down toone basic question: was government necessary at all? Tom Paine had called government a "necessary evil." But after twohundred years of American governmentand the full flowering of capitalism, onecould finally ask if even that "necessaryevil" was necessary. Rothbard has concluded that it is not.
What about ecology, roads, educatingthe poor, the national defense? Rothbardgoes into considerable detail in his bookon these questions and how they would behandled in a libertarian, governmentlesssociety. If one thinks of these problems inlibertarian terms, a number of noncoercive solutions are suggested. A libertarian society assumes a sufficient reservoirof goodwill and voluntarism to look afterthe helpless and indigent. Liberals believethat people have to be forced to help theunfortunate. Libertarians disagree, theyare optimistic about basic human benevolence, and believe it would flower more ina voluntary society than a coercive one.
Ironically, some of the strongest opposition to Rothbard comes not from the liberal establishment, which sees libertarianism as a minor right-wing irritation, butfrom an element within the libertarianmovement-the followers of novelist AynRand. Champion of heroic individualismand laissez-faire capitalism, Ayn Randconsiders herself an antistatist. However,she reserves for government three important functions: police protection, thecourts, and national defense. She wouldfund these activities through voluntarycontributions rather than taxation. HereRothbard's followers challenge her. Whyretain these lethal vestiges of governmenton even a voluntary basis? Police protection could be better provided by privateprotection companies. Arbitration, now afunction of the courts, could be betterprovided 'by private, professional arbitration companies that would settle disputes
46 PENTHOUSE
through voluntary, rather than forced,agreement. Military defense could be provided by private military agencies employing volunteer personnel.
According to Rothbard, the main boneof contention between the two groups isthe handling of criminals. "The Randi.ansinsist on a code of objective law to ha~dle
and punish wrongdoers. We suggest ·thatthe emphasis should be switqhed frompunishing wrongdoers to getling restitution for the victims. Private police wouldnot be interested in investing time andenergy in 'punishing' criminals for theircrimes, but in retrieving stolen goods. Ostracism would be society's principalmeans of 'punishment.' "
Why maintain expensive prisons and theapparatus of punishment and incarceration? In Rothbard's system the threat ofostracism would be a great deterrent tocrime; keep in mind that a human beingcan take and even enjoy all kinds of pun'ishment (punishment, in psychoanalystEric Berne's terms, is stroking of a kind).But few men could bear ostracism-or nostroking-for long. II is probable that in a
Libertarian SamplerFor a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard.Macmillan, 1973. $7.95.How I Found Freedom in iI'n Unfree World,by Harry Browne. Macmillan, 1973. $7.95.The Nature 0/ Man·and His Government,by Robert LeFevre. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. $1.00.No Treason: The Constitution 0/ No Authority, by Lysander Spooner. Pine TreePublications, Rampart College, 104 WestFourth Stree~ Santa Ana, Calif. 92701. $1.50.Liber/arian Handbook 1973. 193 BeaconStreet, Boston, Mass. 02116. $2.00.LP News. libertarian Party, Box 31638,Aurora, Colo. 80011. $2.00 subscription.Books lor Libertarians. 422 First Street,S.E., Washington, D.C. 20003. $1.00 subscription.
society of Rothbard's construction, a criminal would find someone to "stroke" himin the punishing manner he craves.
Would life in such a society be less safethan it is today?
"It's estimated," Rothbard answered,"that only about 5 percent of the criminalpopulation is in prison. The rest are atlarge. There are a lot of people in prison,perpetrators of victimless crimes, whowould be no menace to anyone if theywere given their freedom. Even if all thehard-core murderers were set free,chances would still be ten to one in favorof being killed by accident rather than bymurder." •. .
The federal government statistics bearthis out. In 1967, for example, there were21,325 suicides, 113,169 deaths by accidents, and 13,425 homicides. Most of theintentional homicides were crimes of passion committed by relatives. The odds ofbeing murdered by a criminal are smaller
than of being murdered by a relative.If the government cannot eliminate
deaths by suicide or accident, why shouldwe expect it to eliminate deaths by murder? Governments have been the greatestmurderers. Why should we expect a murderer to protect us from murder?
"Prisons are more for the punishmentof lawbreakers than the protection of society," Rothbard went on. "There are a Jotof taxpayers who are not interested insupporting institutions of punishment.That's another important difference between us and the Randians. Randians arepunishment- oriented, and they spend a lotof time arguing over what punishmentswill fil what crimes."
I had once attended a series of lecturesgiven by Nathaniel Branden, the intellectual heir of Ayn Rand before their bitterbreakup in 1968. There was something peculiar about the Randians' lack of humor.These people were always deadly seriousabout their perfection and everybodyelse's imperfection. Of course, everyonewas jUdged according to the Randian standard of perfection, which the Randians insisted was based on the coldest, most rational objectivism. The truth is that AynRand's idea of perfection is based on herown SUbjective ideal, suited entirely to herown nature.
Despite these negative aspects of Randian philosophy, many of her followershave been led into the libertarian movement by her arguments against collectivism and statism, as well as by her support for laissez-faire economics. Randianswere among a group of libertarians inColorado who decided to organize theLibertarian party in the winter of 1971.During its first year, the party concentrated on the presidential candidacy ofDr. John Hospers. He is director of theSchool of Philosophy at the University ofSouthern California and one of the libertarian movement's leading spokesmen.
The party got its ticket on the ballot inonly two states (Colorado and Washington), and drew about five thousand votes.Ironically, Ayn Rand urged her followersto vote for Nixon and said that voting forHospers was a "moral crime" because itwould help McGovern. Rothbard, on theother hand, has encouraged his followersto engage in political activity through theLibertarian party. He considers such activity educative.
The Libertarian party held its latest convention in Cleveland in June 1973. Morethan two hundred delegates were present.The party has grown to more than threethousand members; it is active in aboutthirty states and has embryonic groups inabout fifteen more. The average membership age is twenty-six. The party's platform advocates, among other things, repeal of the income tax and of all lawsagainst victimless crime-inclUding smoking marijuana, publishing pornography,gambling, and buying gold bullion.
Since Rothbard is a professor of ecoCONTINUED ON PAGE 142
nomics, I asked him for a short-term economic forecast.
"The big danger," he said, "is runawayinflation. The danger point comes whenprices start going up fasler than the moneysupply. We may be reaclling that point."
"Can't the government stop inllation?" Iasked.
"It could, but not without causing a recession, and both parties refuse to accepta recession as a solution. So they keep oninllating, hoping that the inflation won'tget out of hand. Tilis sort of thing can goon for a long time. But if the public decides that its money is not going to beworth very much next year, it may bringon runaway inflation by trying to bUy upeverything in sight instead or maintainingsavings that constantly decrease in value,"
The next libertarian I saw was HarryBrowne, whose new book, How I FoundFreedom in an Unfree World (Macmillan,1973), suggests how an individual mightlive in a world of omnipresent government and still achieve a high degree ofpersonal freedom and happiness. Browneargues that one does not have to wait fora free society before one can live freely.
Basically, Browne's book describes aprocess that everyone who has been atodds with his family and society has hadto go through in order to maintain his ownidentity and integrity. It describes how onecan overcome all of the pressures that prevent him from living the life he wants tolead, from being the kind of person hewants to be.
How did Browne fit into the libertarianmovement? Though in his book he acknowledges an intellectual debt to bothAyn Rand and Murray Rothbard, Brownetakes a uniquely personal and subjectiveapproach to freedom. If freedom is what aman really wants, he can have it providedhe is willing to pay the price society extracts for it. That price includes payingincome tax, performing military service,and in general obeying myriad irritatingand inconvenient rules. To be free, to liveone's own desired life, requires that oneget out of the "traps" that enslave himpsychologically so as to be able to try themany personal available alternatives. Atrap, according to Browne, is a philosophical truism commonly accepted andacted upon, though rarely challenged"You must accept the will of the majority," "Loyalty to your country is supreme,""The goad of society is more importantthan your own happiness" are examples.
"It's very easy to get caught in a trap,"
1 d? P~NTI-l()1J!;F
Browne writes. "The truisms are repeatedso often they can be taken for granted.And that can lead to acting upon the suggestions implied in them-resulting inwasted time, fighting inappropriate battles,and attempting to do the impossible.Traps can lead you to accept restriclionsupon your life lhal have nothing to dowith you. You can unwittingly pay taxesyou don't have to pay, abide by standardsthat are unsuited to you, put up with problems that aren't really yours."
Perhaps the one trap that will cause thegreatest controversy is the morality trap.Browne contends that moral values aresubjective, and that any attempt to live byan absolute or universal moral code created for other people will not bring freedom or happiness for those others. Sinceeach human being is different, Browne
,Do not confuse
provoking society with livingyour life the way you want
to live it-withoutsociety or government seeing
a thing. Lower your taxesby using loopholes, instead
of agitating pUblicly fortax reforms, which allracts
the allention of theIRS. Lead a nonconformist
sex life in private,
contends that it is impossible to achievefreedom or happiness unless each manand woman develops a personal moralityaround his or her own personality. He defines a personal morality as an attempl 10consider.a/l the refevant consequences ofyour actions. He writes: "A personal morality is simply the making of rules for yourself that will guide your conduct towardwhat you want and away from what youdon't want. ... A realistic morality has toconsider many personal factors: your emotional nature, abilities, strengths, weaknesses, and, most important, your goals."
All of the current liberation movementsare basically movements against moralcodes. that attempt to dictate how peopleshould live. Browne contends, however,that one need not wait for society tochange before one can begin living according to his own moral code. Just don't
make a fuss over what you are doing. Doyour own Ihing becau-;e you really want todo it. not because you want to shock society. Do not confuse provoking society wilhliving your life the way you want to live it.The latter can be done without society orthe government noticing a thing. For example, you can lower your taxes by usingall existing loopholes instead of agitatingpublicly for tax reforms, which would attract the attention of IRS auditors. Youcan lead a nonconformist sex life in private, without joining women's lib or gaylib and thus provoking the anger of yourcommunity or the police.
I lalked to Browne in his hilltop hornein West Vancouver. The house, a modernthree-level arrangement, has a sweepingview of Vancouver and the Pacific inlet thatseparates it tram West Vancouver. He hadrecently bought the 5120,000 house withthe money he made on his best-selling firstbook, How You Can Profil from the Coming Devaluation.
At forty, Browne is an inveterate romantic. He will sit for hours in his huge living room listening to Wagner, Puccini, orDelius on a magnificent stereo system,with a fire in the fireplace, a glass of wine,and a breathtaking view of Vancouver.There is a charming young woman shar-ing it' with him. .
"My philosophy," he said, "is one of individualism in the full sense of the word,in that I recognize and respect the individuality of every person. I recognize the basicSUbjective nature of perception and that notwo people are alike. I take the other person seriously. I recognize his sovereigntyover himself, just as I recognize my ownsovereignty. I don't expect any other individual to conform to my moral code. Ittook me a long time to develop my ownpersonal moral code based on my ownunique individuality. A moral code has tobe personal to be of any value as a guidefo your own actions. It is, in a way, themost personal reflection of who you are."
Some of his critics consider Brownesimplistic and unintellectual, but thisdoesn't bother him. He believes the purpose of his life is to ensure his own happiness. If his happiness can make someoneelse happy, all well and good. But he doesnot eypect anyone 10 sacrifice their happiness for him. "Instead of depending onthe rest of the world to make things better, you depend on yourself."
"Doesn't this make for a lonely existence?" I asked.
"Not at all," Browne replied. "You canfind people who will accept you as youare. But you have to reveal yourself tothem. If you hide behind a false front. thepeople you really want to attract won't beable to recognize you. But in order to reveal your true self you have to know yourself. You have to be honest in evaluatingyour qualities, abilities, weaknesses, anc!strengths,
"Some people find it hard to acceptthemselves as they are and create a
r
After shove, after shower, after anything,Brut"lotion by Foberge.
ment control of ::ell. In 1957 he createdan institution known as the FreedomScho'ol to promulgate his philosophy ofzero government. II was housed in severalelaborate log cabins, and it attracted students from all over the country. FreedomSchool operated entirely on the free-
. enterprise principles it preached. In 1962it became Rampart College, with an expanded faCUlty and more buildings; but itlater became apparent that the institutionhad expanded too fast and bitten off morethan it could chew. In 1969 the campuswas sold and the school was relocated inthe First Western Bank BUilding in SantaAna, California, situated in .the mainstream of the libertarian movement. Bythat time, however, LeFevre was no longeraffiliated with Rampart College; he had resigned as director a few months before inorder to conduct his courses on a freelance basis. Over the years he had built upa corporate clientele that engaged him togive his free-enterprise course to executives. In this way, his philosophy reachedmany in the corporate community.
I asked him what the difference was between Rothbard and himself.
"We agree about 98 percent of the time.We differ on the use of the term anarchy. Rothbard calls himself an anarchocapitalist and he calls me an anarchoindividualist. I call myself an 'autarchist.' "
This was a term LeFevre had coinedafter seeking a word to describe his concept: autarchy, meaning self-rule, as opposed to anarchy, meaning no rule at all.LeFevre sees self-rule in absolute terms. Ahuman being is sovereign over himself andhis property, and any attempt to deprivea person of that sovereignty is, in LeFevre's view, immoral. He carries thisview of sovereignty over into his very controversial concept of justice, and writes, inhis pamphlet Justice, "Justice would consist of an exercise of sovereign controlover a person and his property, by thatperson himself." It would also inClude aWillingness on the part of each person toimpose self-discipline so that no onewould seek to interfere with the controlthat another person naturally exercisesover his own person and property.
How would society treat violations ofsuch sovereignty? Here LeFevre.proposesan approach at least as radical as Rothbard's, perhaps even more so:
"A radical and profound change inthinking is required. For ten thousandyears or more, we have striven to retaliateagainst those who practice injustice or whowe have been led to believe practice injustice. We have done it privately. Wehave done it through theology. And today,government is the god of retribution, andwe employ it on a giant scale.
"The amount of time and energy expended in seeking to retaliate is incalculable. All wars contain this element. Mostof our court actions contain it. Our prisonsand other penal institutions are full of it.None of these procedures is economically
false front. But the false front only attracts people who will expect somethingthat is not there. They will be disappointedwhen they find out that behind the front isan entirely different person."
I asked him in what way he differedfrom Rothbard on the matter of anarchy.
"It's all in the way you interpret theword anarchy," he said. "I'm not an anarchist like Rothbard because I'm not tryingto change the social system. In order tohave the kind of society Rothbard wants,you have to have a society governed bycertain principles and moral standards.Only a government can create that kinQofgeneral conformity. Actually, I'm more !ofan anarchist than most of them because Irecognize the present anarchy all aroundme and am trying to live my life in thatcontext. I have no interest in changing society. I don't have that many years left. Iwant to make the most of the time I have."
There is a kind of restlessness aboutBrowne. He believes that the next twentyyears will see far greater upheavals thanin the recent past.
"I make plans involving a year or two.I don't believe in tying myself down to along-range commitment in a world that'schanging so drastically."
I left Vancouver and flew to Sacramento,where I had arranged to n;oeet Robert LeFevre, one of the legendary people in thezero-government movement and thefounder of Rampart College. He met me atthe airport with his red Cadillac. He was inhis sixties, with well-groomed white hairand an infectious smile. I brought himgreetings from Harry Browne, whom heknew well. All of the important libertarians know one another, but each hasdeveloped his own variation of the philosophy of individual freedom. There isno orthodoxy or party line among them.
Like so many libertarians, LeFevre hadstarted out as a Taft Republican, with astrong bias against government interfer~nce in a free economy and a belief thatRepublicans ran the government betterthan Democrats. But gradually he saw thatthe difference between the two parties wasacademic-they both advocated programsthat were contrary to the principles of economic freedom. In 1954, LeFevre washired by R.C. Hailes, owner of the Freedom Newspapers chain, to write editorialsadvocating free enterprise for the Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph and otherFreedom newspapers. The only requirement laid down was that LeFevre be consistent in his arguments. It was this rulethat led LeFevre to his zero governmentposition. He simply could not justify theintervention by government into any areaof life. Limited government was no morejustifiable than unlimited government.Both were based on the immoral principles of coercion and control of people.
By 1956 LeFevre had formulated hisphilosophy of "autarchism"-the philosophy of self-control rather than govern-
en.oru
ou aveany oub s
'a out ourself,fry
some ing else.
144 PENTHOUSE
~~lJnd. N,"w (11 t1H'nl if, m(1r;l1. None ofthem l1:Js been successful. Retribution,vengeance.', punishment. and retaliationare the greatest burden human beingshave ever devised for themselves.
"Therefor C'. I am going to suggest thiltwe stop thinking retribution and begintllinkin('J protection."
"I recognize," he wrote, "that underpressures of emotion any man is susceptible to the call 01 the jungle. But let usavoid the intellectual dishonesty of presuming thilt we are moral when we aremerely scared. What the victim of the firstact of injustice should do, morally, is torespect the rights of the man who has notshowed that respect to him. You do nottreat the immoral man with immorality.You Ireat him to morality, and retain
.your own position of rightness. You limitthe offense to the party WllO is guilty. Youdo not seek to take guilt on yourself."
Tilere are a great many libertarians whohave trouble accepting this concept. Yet itis perfectly consistent with the libertarianview of justice.
LeFevre also differs with Rothbard onthe value of political activity. In that respect he is closer to Browne's view.
"The best way to fight government is towithdraw your support of it. You can dothis by making as little use of governmentas possible. You can reduce your use of itto the barest necessities, such as riding ongovernment roads, using the post office,The less people use government, the morelikely it will be reduced. If more parentsstarted private schools, public educationwould start getting smaller not bigger."
"What about political movements likethe Libertarian party?" I asked.
"1 like John Hospers," he smiled. "Whenhe announcw his candidacy I sent him aget-well card. He's not a libertarian, buta limited-government conservative."
What about Bi rchers and National Review conservatives? Were they coming intothe libertarian movement?
"Birchers and Buckleyites are essentiallycounterparts of SDS [Students for a Democratic Society]. When a Bircher becomesa libertarian he stops being a Bircher. Thelibertarian movement has pulled peopleout of both the SDS and the JBS [JohnBirch Society]. If the process continues,you'll have a new split: the libertarians onone side and the authoritarians on theother. Conservatives who are uptight onnonconformist lifestyles will make common cause with liberals who are uptighton economic freedom."
I asked LeFevre what his feelings wereconcerning America's economic future.Harry Browne had told me that he believeda depression was inevitable. "A .crashis the washing out of all the sins of inflation," Browne had said. LeFevre tended toconcur.
"The government is engaged in sabotaging the economy of the United Statesthrough continued inflation and economiccontrols," he said,
"Would the country survive a depression?" I asked.
"People will survive," he said. "When agovernment collapses and goes down thetube, poverty takes over. But the recovery begins."
I went on to Los Angeles to talk to Seymour Leon, the current director of Rampart College. The college's offices have theair of a successful enterprise. Sy Leon, aman of about fifty, is of medium heightand wears a short beard. He joined thestaff in 1966 while Rampart College wasstill in Colorado. His introduction to libertarian philosophy had come through AynRand's novel Atlas Shrugged, where hefound an affirmation of his own values.He became an objectivist and a representative of the Nathaniel Branden Institutein Chicago and Milwaukee. In 1964 heand his wife, Riqui, took LeFevre's twoweek course at Rampart College and became sold on LeFevre's zero governmentphilosophy. They returned to Chicago andfound themselves at odds with their objectivist friends, especially those engagedin political activism. The couple wereeventually excommunicated from objectivist circles.
"We were excommunicated because westarted to think," Leon said. "There is acertain mentality that seeks a godlike figure. Many followers of Ayn.Rand are likethat. But the breakup of Nathaniel Brandenand Rand has been beneficial in that ithas broken up the dogma."
I asked him how people accepted theidea of zero government today as compared to five years ago.
"There's been a definite change in people's attitudes. They will accept ideas thatfive years ago were taboo or consideredtoo radical. Now we start with the question, is government necessary? and theyare willing to listen. We hear of libertarianconferences being held all over the country. We now attract as many as eight hundred people at a weekend conference."
He explained that Rampart College nolonger conducted classes as it had whenlocated in Colorado. The institution nowoffers home-stUdy courses, courses oncassettes as well as live seminars. Leonsaw no fundamental change in the institution's point of view after LeFevre's departure. He did say that the college intended to expand further into psychology
~ and child-rearing. For example, the newest home-study course was called "Raising Children for Fun and Profi!."
"We have gotten into psychology."explained Leon, "because we found thatpeople were experiencing a profoundemotional reaction to LeFevre's course.People would burst into tears, become_physically ill. Yet we were talkin'g aboutideas. I analyzed why this was happening.It was the critical analysis of basic valuesand the rearrangement of their valuesthat caused these emotional reactions, Itbecame apparent that people needed a
"The earthlings may be awesome, but their weapons areerratic and totally harmless!"
IliDll level of self-awmeness and selfesteem before tlley could really corne toaccept a voluntary b<lsis for social org,lniwtion rather Ihan a coercive one."
Sy Leon, of course, saw no use in particip<lting in the political process. He believed with LeFevre that the best way toget rid of government was to withdrawfrom it. In fact, 11e had formed a Leagueof Non-Voters in February 1972 to urgepeople not 10 vole in the presidential eleclion. He did it as a means of gaining attention for his position, and he was surprised holY many radio and television talkshows invited him to air his views. He received about twenty-five thousand lettersfrom allover the country supporting hisposition.
This indic<1tes that there is indeed considerable potential support for the libertarian antipolitical pl1ilosophy in America.Many people are simply fed up with politics and their government's inability tosolve the simplest problems, even with themost money any government has ever hadat its disposal.
Leon ended the interview by telling meabout a political candidate who had takenLeFevre's course some years before. Afterhe completed the course, this man wentback to his supporters, withdrew his candidacy even though his victory was assured, and thereafter concentrated on improving the quality of his own life.
J '
To explore Ihe spread of libertarianthought among the young, I went to seeLowell Ponte, a twenty-seven-year-old libertarian columnist and television commentator. He was living with his parents inRedlands, some sixty miles east of LosAngeles.
Ponte is a tall, rather heavy man. He ishighly intelligent, tense, artiCUlate, and achain smoker. He has a great deal of technical expertise, especially in matters ofatomic weaponry. "There are cralefuls oftechnical experts in the libertarian movement," he says. But for all his expertise inscience and technology, he considershimself an "anarcho-mystic."
"Becoming an anarchist," he explained,"is a leap of faith. You enter a statecomparable to a trip on LSD. It's hard toimagine a world without governmentwhen you've lived with so much of it all ofyour life."
His grasp of technology has given himinsights into centralization's dangers.
"Government is using technology tostrengthen its grip on everything. But technological centralization is also the government's Achilles' heel. Centralizationthrough technology has made our societyhighly vulnerable. Most of the people ofLos Angeles could be deprived of water bya few simple acts of sabotage. The systemis extremely vulnerable, From a practicalpoint of view, coercive government is a
danger to society. In a society run bycoercion, the coin of the realm is power.Power-hungry people rise to the top ingovernment. Coercion is their way of life.One person can become capable of forcing millions 10 do what he wants"
"Bul isn't an elective government asafeguard against such tyranny?" I asked.
"Bill Buckley says he'd rather be governed by the first five hundred names inthe New York telephone directory than byan elected Congress, and I would agree.Politics attracts people obsessed by theapplause of the crowd, and by their ownfascination with power. In other words,elective politics attracts the sickest andmost perverted people in our society, andthese are the ones we must chooseamong."
I asked him how he proposed that thesystem be changed.
"The task for radicals is to see that government is not the enemy. Government isjust a small elite who rob us through taxesfor their own benefit, and the buildings inwhich that elite dwell. Our goal must beto end the 'governmentality,' the cravingfor a dependence upon government inpeople's heads. Government is the symptom, whereas governmentality is the disease. Government leaders have a vestedinterest in that governmentality, that addiction to social reflexes based on aleader-follower view of the world."
"But won't there always be followerslooking for leaders, even if we don't havegovernment?" I asked.
"Yes. And for that reason I suspect thata governmentless society would probablybe a corporate society-that is. peoplewho need the security of a big brotherwould attach themselves to the corporation that provides them with the kind ofwork they liked. Japan represents a splendid model of the corporate function. Companies dispense the same functions asgovernment. Workers salute companyflags, sing company anthems. A corporatesociety would provide government services without coercive power behind it."
Rothbard had also talked somewhatalong these lines, acknOWledging that conflicts could arise between corporations,but believing that such conflicts would belimited to the people specifically involved,rather than involve an entire nation.
Toward the end of the conversation Iasked Ponte what he saw for the future ofthe libertarian movement. He was somewhat vague.
"The Left has no answer for anything.The answers will probably come from theRight. Youth is quiescent for the moment.The draft and the war are over. Perhapsthe next big issue will.be taxes."
My last stop was Wichita, Kansas, the geographic center of America. I had comehere to see Robert Love, president of acompany that makes corrugated boxesand author of How to Start Your OwnSchool, published this year by Macmillan.
146 PENTHOUSE
Lo,vcfl ronte h~d referred to Love <lS one01 the educ~tionists in the libert<lrianmovement. In 19GO Love, concerned withtile educ~tion of his three children, hadbeen instrumentill in creating ilnd buildingtile Wichita Collegi:lte School, a privatealternative to the public schools, Theschool, run strictly on lull-cost tuition, freemarket principles, has since grown intoa Ill'althy, thriving institution,
I had last seen Love ilbout seven yearsiHl0, He hild been one of the founders oftile John Birch Society, and I hild met himwhen I lVilS <l writer lor some of the society's pUblications. In 19G8, however, aYL'~r ~((er I l1~d left the society, love anda sm~1I group of friends bought a full pagein the 10C~1 Wichitil pilper and advocated1/lllllediate withdr,llVill from Vietnarn. Forthis ilction, the Gircllers called Bob Lovea comnlunist, but the trutll was that hehad been converted to LeFevre's zerogovernment philosophy and couldn't seespending one more American life or onemore dollar to create another oppressivegovernment elsewhere in the world. Love,too, had started out as a Taft RepUblicanand had evolved into a free-market capitalist. In the Fifties he worked hard to getthe Kansas constitution amended so thatno one in the state could either be deniedthe right to join a union or forced to joinone. But the victory meant nothing-theamendment was never implemented. He'dlea'rned the futility of political action.
Meilnwhile, he had decided to create aprivate school; and this is where he SilWthat private ilction could produce tangihle,durable results. Money could always belost by inflation or confiscated by a totalitalian state, but an education endured."All the material g~in in the world," Lovesaid, "is useless without the ability to thinkand to reason. A man can give his childrenvalues, ideals, Clnd an education that cannever be lost, stolen, or destroyed."
Love, a family man and businessmanwho has remained with his property in themiddle of Kansrls, sees things from a different perspective than do Browne andLeFevre. Browne, reslless and single, prefers the mobility of gold and Swiss francs,Love sees his wealth in his home, his manulilcturing facility, his school. This illustrates how two men can espouse the samebasic libertarian principles but apply themdillerently to the conditions of their lives.
Love applies his principle of not relyingon government for anything to his ownbusiness. He lobbies for nothing. He prefers to spend his energies adapting hisbusiness to the changing marketplace andthe caprices of legislators rather than intrying to control either artificially.
Because he has seen so much energywasted in political activity, Love is nowconcerned with how to expend the energyhe has left. "I got so tired of defendingthe National Association of Manufacturers,the John Birch Society, and ttre Republi-
can party that I asl-:ed myself Why couldn'tI defend freedom Without my motivesbeing questioned."
So he dropped out of them all. Now heis infinitely more satisfied. He lectures todifferent groups in town, belongs to a locallibertarian discussion club, has written abook about his school experience, and ishelping to improve the school.
Both Bob Love and I had gone into theJohn Birch Society for the same reasons,defended Robert Welch for the same reasons, and finally left that movement forthe same reasons. We discovered by painful experience that organizations can betray individuals far more deeply thanindividuals can betray organizations. Inthe end, we realized that any man orgroup who demanded loyalty only wantedit in order to betray you later.
I had talked with men who believe that afree, orderly, prosperous, and creativesociety is possible without coercive government. These men have faith in the ability of their fellow human beings to controltheir own lives and destinies. Thesemen are creating a revolution that is notout to overthrow anybody. It is not onlynonpolitical in nature, but basically antipolitical. Its most effective tactic is towithdraw from all voluntary political involvement, to demonstrate through one'sown way of life that it is possible to livewithout government. ~
'". .w
'"- .....
. - ....'l.- ••
• .. 1\
---., .---
Warning: The Surgeon General Has DeterminedThaI Cigarette Smoking Is Dangerous to Your Heahh.
..\
':.;'-... . --,. ...
- -
I,;
/
,/
/
I
J
" ..'. ,..
..
\:I~
--~
-
~
':. .......i
...I
,
r
_.."....~..~"·b!!S=R!R!S;;Zll3'.!;;;;:;;;c:;:;gz5lm-;o;:IIl=::;.:._.._-_.-.- _.' _.- ---- .. -'-~ - ........ '"..,. ".".King, 17 mg.""r:' 1.2 mg. nicotine. Extra Long, 18 mg. "ta,;' 1.3 mg. nicotine avo per cigarette, FTC Report Ifeb.'731.
147
Recommended
