An Open Letter to Grant Phillips
(in respond to his open letter)
I don’t know you, Grant. I’ve never read any of your work. Everything I know about you is based on this one article. Suffice it to say that is all I’m going after.
In your open letter to Anti-Rand, Purist Libertarians, you make very broad generalizations that are unfair, unreasonable, and are stopped short of telling the whole story. Maybe you’re a good guy. I don’t know. But I’m not writing this to berate your character as others have. Instead I’m writing this to get a point across that you’ve completely missed.
It doesn’t matter what possible good Rand Paul can do for your liberty or mine. It doesn’t matter what people call you that is not constructive. What matters is the message you are sending. And that message is an incomplete message that doesn’t take into consideration the consent of the individual to be interacted with at all; to be governed at all. So no matter what any candidate does, whether it is Hillary, Jeb, Rand, or Gary, if their platform is built upon the violation of consent to being governed; and that means being taxed regardless of the noblest of intentions. The means do not always justify the ends and might never makes right.
Not once in your open letter did you discuss that. You cannot generalize and make statements about (l)ibertarians and anarchists not supporting Rand Paul while supporting Gary Johnson and then be taken seriously by others who understand what those words mean in the order in which you placed them.
A real anarchist, (l)ibertarian, or voluntaryist doesn’t support either of those individuals because they continue to violate the consent of the individual to be interacted with. In other words, you stating “In their logic…(not voting at all) is more effective means to curb these ailments…” That little sleight of hand remark meant to demean the intelligence of those dissenting against the system by choosing not to participate so they do not have to accept responsibility for those who do is uncalled for, dishonest, and shows a fault in your own logic. Basically you just stated that ‘if you don’t vote you can’t complain,’ but in different words.
Consent to being interacted with is a very important concept. No, things are not going to change overnight and I’m not saying you are naïve at all. I’m simply pointing out the contradictions in your arguments. You are a statist by definition and that makes you part of the problem.
I’m not Copblock, Big L or small l libertarian against anything, or an Info Wars pusher. I advocate for peace and a desire to learn critical thinking skills. The goal of the liberty movements should always be to teach, not chastise and make generalizations.
Yes, I’m writing this because the things you’ve portrayed I believe do more harm than good. You might have ‘learned to adapt your beliefs’ but your beliefs still justify granting legitimacy to the status quo, to government. And because your beliefs do that, you support the violation of consent of people to be interacted with and that empowers government to continue.
How many more people need to be unfairly brutalized by police in order for them to earn their paychecks before you realize that your position of ‘working within the system’ is still fueling the fire that is government? By choosing to respect the rules of the oppressor you are granting it legitimacy; you are showing others that it is right and just to bow to that which is founded on unwarranted act of coercion and violence.
However, if you want a truly free world then perhaps you might want to refrain from labeling those people who write so others can read as ‘fringe thinkers;’ a statement that seems to attach a nasty stigma to them. Instead of responding to critics with nasty sleight of hand undertones, why not ask them where they are coming from? What is their angle?
Why not simply ask yourself why you are okay pushing the reins of power of a Rand Paul onto Hillary or Jeb supporters when you yourself don’t want them pushing their choice for master on you?
Stop justifying the violations of consent to affect a change. That’s what the entire system is built upon. Stop trying to fight fire with fire. It doesn’t always work when the fire you are fighting against is so much bigger; you’re only adding to it.