Main menu

My name is Larken Rose, and you are most likely here because you have either heard about my research into the federal income tax, or you have heard about my political (or anti-political) rantings and/or books. Because the two issues are really separate, distinct issues, they are dealt with separately. So choose which path below you want.


Libertarian Party: Worthless

I'm sad to announce that the Libertarian Party is utterly
worthless. Well, the fact that it was a political party vying for
the throne made it not only worthless, but counter-productive, from
the beginning. If you're waiting around for "government" to pass a
"law" giving you permission to be free, then: a) you'll be waiting
a long time, and b) you're not even free inside your own head yet.
As long as you are begging any master to endorse your freedom, you
will remain a slave.

But aside from that, my complaint today is that the Libertarian
party has no real principles anymore. None. By its label, there is
only one principle it should ever have had: the principle of non-
aggression. That's what "libertarianism" is all about. It's a very
simple, basic principle, and it is philosophically and morally
sound. And it has been abandoned by the Libertarian Party. (No,
this didn't just happen now, but it's getting more obvious.)

I just read an article, here on Freedom's Phoenix, where the
Libertarian Party was, ironically, trying to warn people about how
the Republican Party is not a friend of freedom. While that is
quite true, the quotes from the Libertarian Party showed that it is
no friend of freedom either. And a very simple phrase from the
article is all the proof you need. It said that the Libertarian
Party wants to "cut taxes," and push for "less government" and
"more freedom." It's not that they oppose aggression in principle;
it's that they want less aggression. How much less? Well,
apparently it depends how much is "needed," and how much is
"possible"--whatever that means.

There is a huge, fundamental difference between advocating less
evil, and advocating no evil. Advocating a significant reduction in
murder, rape, and armed robbery, is not the same as being opposed
to such things entirely. Since "taxation" is a euphemism for
extortion and robbery, done via violence and the threat of
violence, the libertarian principle does not allow for any taxation
at all. The anti-aggression principle is incompatible with any
"taxation." Period.

Yet the Libertarian Party is out there talking about "lower taxes."
While we're at it, how about if we have a platform of being for a
40% reduction in murder, a 50% reduction in rape, and--hey, let's
get radical--a 70% reduction in car-jacking? After all, it would be
extreme to advocate that we should have none of those things. So
we'd better try to phase in that reduction in murder, and water
down our opposition to rape, and be more moderate in our opposition
to car-jacking. Because, after all, we need to win elections, and
you can't do that if you have actual principles!

The Libertarian Party has ceased to be libertarian. They don't dare
to bluntly describe what libertarianism entails, because that would
scare too many potential voters, who have been thoroughly
indoctrinated into the cult of state-worship. Instead of speaking
about succinct, specific principles, Libertarian candidates and
spokes-folk muddle around in more publicly acceptable generalities.
They want less of this and more of that. Less than what? More than
what? Where is the ultimate goal? What is the underlying principle?

Having basically abandoned the principle of non-aggression, by
talking about "cutting" (not eliminating) "taxes," even if the
Party magically won every seat in the cult called "government," it
would accomplish exactly nothing. The Party would transform into
what the Republican Party was in 1994: lots of pretend pro-freedom
principles, followed by lots of real-world control-freak oppression.

"Now, now, we have to be practical, and do things slowly, and win
people over, and yada, yada, yada." Bullpoop. When you drop the
principle, in order to win public approval, your cause becomes
worthless. If you don't even dare to bluntly say what you believe,
and what your ultimate goal is, why should anyone expect you to act
on what you (supposedly) believe? When you go on a road trip, is
your goal to get closer to your destination, or to actually get

"So, Bob, where are you going on vacation?"

"Well, Chuck, I'm planning on traveling in the general direction of
the Bahamas. I don't intend to actually get there, mind you, and
I'll be moving really slowly, so as not to offend anyone. But I
definitely want to move some in the general direction of the

The Libertarian Party doesn't like to talk about its ultimate end
goal: a purely voluntary society. Why not? Because that's not its
end goal anymore. Its end goal is to be in power, to be the new
master--a more wise, benevolent master, but a master nonetheless.
"Well, once we get into power, then we'll slowly do away with state
aggression." Bull poop. They would do nothing of the sort. They've
stopped even giving lip service to that goal, and are now
pathetically wimpering about "lower taxes," and a "reduced" this
and a "reformed" that.

In short, the Libertarian Party does not believe that you own
yourself. They believe, just as strongly as every other political
party does, that you are the property of the state. They claim to
want the state to allow you to keep more of what you earn, and to
grant you its holy permission (via its "laws") to have more say
over your day-to-day life. Big deal. There is a difference between
being nice to your slaves, and not having slaves. The Libertarian
Party is now the Nice Slavemaster Party. And for some of us,
trading in our iron shackles for softer, lighter plastic shackles,
in pretty colors, is just not good enough.

Want to see an actual principle? Here's one:

You own yourself. No one has the right to take what you earn
without your consent, even if they call their demands "law" and
refer to the robbery as "taxation." Extortion and robbery, even
when "legal," even when they are alleged to be "necessary," are
illegitimate, and it is perfectly moral to avoid or resist being
robbed by any means necessary. You don't need any law or other
authoritarian decree to tell you that you own yourself, or to allow
you to keep what you earn, or to otherwise be in charge of your own

When the Libertarian Party dares to say something like that,
they'll have my respect again. As long as they keep watering down
the truth to try to win people over, they will be just another
bunch of opportunistic, aspiring politicians, who will accomplish
nothing more than devouring the efforts and resources of people who
long for freedom, without ever getting them one inch closer to it.

Larken Rose