PRINT-The Declaration of Independents by Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie

Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie are the co-pilots over at Reason, and they have written a really good book about libertarianism and the independent voter. It makes for great reading. I don't know if it will change your thinking if you are already a libertarian, but it does give food for thought in terms of what we can expect from a libertarian revolution.



The crux of the book centers around an idea. The idea is not "libertarian" as a noun but as an adjective. If you see it as a noun, you would have to conclude that libertarianism is dead in the water. If you see libertarianism as an adjective, you become very hopeful because it is growing by leaps and bounds in this world. This libertarianism as adjective is being driven by independents--people with no stated political philosophy or affiliation but who are doing their own thing with revolutionary results. From the deregulation of airlines by the example of Southwest Airlines to the Velvet Revolution to the Tea Party, Welch and Gillespie make the case that the libertarian revolution is ongoing as people pursue freedom in their respective areas. These independents favor choice and innovation even though relatively few of them have ever read Rothbard, Hayek, or Friedman.



The point that the book seems to make is that political freedom is as much a product of spontaneous order as Amazon or Google or WikiLeaks. The current Arab Spring lends credence to this idea. Much of that has been fueled by a triumvirate of WikiLeaks, Facebook, and Twitter. Here in the USA, you can see a prediction that these independents will foment their own revolution to bring about the freedom they desire. This may or may not happen. But I cannot help but be pessimistic.



The problem as I see it is that the masses are utterly stupid. Independents are no different. Probably the biggest example of this stupidity was that Tea Party fucktard that said they need to keep their government hands off his Medicare. And this is the problem with the libertarian as adjective approach. It becomes a giant Rorschach test. On this basis, Ralph Nader is libertarian because he defends civil liberties. Similarly, the Tea Party has co-opted much libertarian rhetoric and symbolism, but they are fundamentally no different than the Bible beating neocons of the rest of the Republican Party.







The reality is that it is a mixed bag. These independents might elect someone sensible like a Gary Johnson, but they are more likely to elect a nutbag like Jesse Ventura or a cocksucker like Donald Trump. The fact that Michele Bachmann and not Ron Paul is the darling of the Tea Party should tell you something.



What I do agree with is that change is going to happen whether we like it or not. On this, we can be quite optimistic. But I see it more like the parable of the wheat and the tares. Freedom and ignorance grow together leaving mixed results. The same populace that revolted against the Soviet Union is now enamored with Vladimir Putin. The simple fact is that things can go either way and often does. There is no historic inevitability about freedom. We might be on the threshold of worldwide revolution or one world government. This might be penicillin, or it might be MRSA.



What does all this mean for libertarians? Clearly, libertarians offer a real alternative to the two-party politics we see today. Unfortunately, I doubt independents are going to take it. When Ron Paul loses again and Barack Obama gets re-elected despite the shittiest economy since the Great Depression, you will see that the only constant is frustration and dissatisfaction. It is in the nature of governments to lag behind the societies they govern. This is because markets are smart, but democracy is stupid. Independents are too fucking stupid to do the smart thing. When they do something smart, it is almost purely accidental in much the same way that the broken clock is right twice a day.



Definitely read this book.

Posted in: