A Positive Libertarian Pledge

by Ray Roberts

Posted May 29, 2006

“I do not believe in or advocate initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

“I believe force should only be used to protect life, liberty and property from attack.”

Which of these two statements most accurately represents your view about the use of force?

Before you answer that question, please listen to my experience and opinion.

My Experience with the Pledge

I discovered the Libertarian Party in 2000 and I became a member immediately. It seemed a natural fit for my feelings... and I was right.

When I clicked on “Join” and filled-out the membership form, I paused momentarily when asked to ”sign” the Libertarian Pledge:

“I do not believe in or advocate initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

I thought, “yeah, sure... that sounds reasonable to me. Initiation of force is bad and the statement doesn't disallow self-defense...” So, I signed it and thought very little of it.

Sometime later after becoming active in our county Libertarian Party, someone on our local email list made some disparaging comments about the “Libertarian Pledge.” My first response was, “What pledge?” Then, after rediscovering it, I proceeded to defend it as being an ideal that made Libertarians unique and protected us from accusations that we might be dangerous.

A few months later, I seriously began to question my position and to examine the Pledge after a local university professor told me that he had made the decision to join the Libertarian Party, but changed his mind when the Libertarian Pledge was thrust in front of him. He had analyzed it and rejected it.

I personally feel that a pledge expressing the Libertarian Party's view on the use of force is vitally important and we need one that unambiguously, accurately, and inspiringly captures the beliefs of the its members. Unfortunately though, it's now clear to me that the current Libertarian Pledge can alienate libertarian-leaning people. The current Pledge is a poor expression about the use of force that we shouldn't support.

We can do better.

It's Incomplete and Ambiguous

The current Pledge is stated in the negative: “I do not believe...”. It says that the initiation of force should not be used for two purposes.

“I do not believe in or advocate initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

It's ambiguous because “political” and “social goals” are undefined. It's incomplete because it doesn't provide information about when the initiation of force is legitimate.

If there exist “social goals,” wouldn't we also have “personal goals?” For example, what about theft? Suppose I have the “personal goal” of getting a better computer. Do I have the right to steal it? It's neither a political nor a social goal, so why not? Even murder could be justified under the current Pledge because it doesn't rule-out bad behavior!

By specifying when “initiation of force” is not acceptable, it implies that other times initiated force is acceptable. It leaves unanswered the question of when the use of force is ok. Can we assume self-defense is ok? Can we assume all other uses of force are ok? Does everyone decide for himself?

The Libertarian Party should not be using a Pledge about the initiation of force that is ambiguous and incomplete and leaves so many unanswered questions.

Taxation

Since taxation is clearly an initiation of force (your life, liberty, and property are at risk if you don't agree to pay), then by substitution the following statement should also be true:

“I do not believe in or advocate taxation as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

Some libertarians might applaud this statement. It can be supported by starting with the self-ownership assumption.. Here's the argument:

1. Every person owns him/herself.
2. Every individual is manifested as life, liberty, and property (where property is the product of life and liberty in time).
3. As owner, every person has the right to his or hers.
4. Therefore, no one has the right to initiate force to take life, liberty, or property.
5. End of Argument.

“No one” means what it says. “Government” isn't any different than any other group or individual. No entity can legitimately initiate force. In such a society, there are no tax-supported governments. If everyone respected everyone else's property, we would have a society without conflict. Even acknowledging the potential of conflict though, they believe that humans can work out their problems and prosper without any coercive government.

But, not every libertarian has faith in the anarchist, anarcho-libertarian, or anarcho-capitalistic theory. As James Madison said in the Federalist Papers, “if men were angels” no government would be necessary. But, they're not. The more popular libertarian viewpoint, substantially supported by the Libertarian Party's platform, is that the existence of criminals (those that initiate force to take life, liberty, or property) necessitates a limited government for protection.

I put myself in that category. I conclude that governments are inevitable because of the perpetual existence of criminals who enlist “police” to enforce their goals and plunder the citizenry. A modern anarchistic society, one without deeply held religious or tribal customs, would not result in a functional society. It would deteriorate quickly into hell and then into governments.

If we are going to have governments, it's best that they be led by Libertarian leaders and constitutionally limited to protection of individual rights. I think it's fair to say that taxation for this purpose is acceptable to nearly all Libertarian Party members. Yet, we have a Pledge that states that says it isn't.

The Libertarian Pledge is inaccurate because it precludes taxation for any purpose, even for a Libertarian limited government. It doesn't represent the viewpoint of most of its members and those that vote for us.

A Better Pledge

“I believe force should only be used to protect life, liberty and property from attack.”

I propose the statement above as an improved Libertarian Pledge that is less ambiguous, more complete, and more accurate than the current pledge.

It has advantages:

• It's a positive rather than a negative statement. This is what we believe!
• The word “only” makes it clear that force should not be used for any other purposes (unambiguous).
• It includes the fundamental rights we value... life, liberty, and property.
• “... from attack” ensures that the preceding “protect” can't be interpreted to include government welfare (unambiguous).
• It should be acceptable to all “flavors” of Libertarians.
• It doesn't forbid tax-supported limited government.
• It's much easier to remember.

Let's make the Pledge something we can all support, promote, and use to attract people to our political party.

We need a new and better Pledge. I offer you my suggested Libertarian Pledge along with the rationale to support it.

“I believe force should only be used to protect life, liberty, and property from attack.”

10 Comments

Printer Friendly Version
Top of Page