Claire Wolfe says, "America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." [from: 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution].
The Autonomist thinks we missed the cue to shoot the bastards in 1791, although some involved in the Whisky Rebellion tried. Since then, the government has grown ever more powerful, more intrusive, and more repressive. That provocative statement by Claire Wolfe sums up the two most prevalent views about what ought to be done to reverse this trend of government oppression and to restore the country to the, "land of liberty," the founders intended.
These "two" views are actually variations of the same view. They both presume the problem is how the government is run and that the solution is either to reform the government by "working within the system," or to correct the problem by "shooting" those who are abusing its power. (This is not necessarily what Claire Wolfe meant to imply, however.) What is wrong with both these views is the presumption that government is the solution, and that freedom will reign if we only have the right government.
But, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," Ronald Reagan eloquently stated. The freedom enjoyed by American citizens in the first one hundred fifty years of this country were not the result of the kind of government we had, but the fact there was so little of it. We have essentially the same kind of government today, but do not enjoy anything like the kind of freedom American citizens enjoyed as little as a hundred, of even sixty, years ago.
How To Regain Freedom
The Autonomist frankly believes, if you are going to be free in your lifetime, you will have to make yourself free. No movement, no program, no government or social change, and no revolution is going to bring you freedom in the foreseeable future. That, of course, is what the Autonomist is all about. It is the personal means to freedom The Autonomist promotes.
The Autonomist approach to freedom does not appeal to everyone. There are many other views of freedom and how to achieve it. While I do not agree with all of the approaches, or even all the objectives of other freedom lovers (and fighters), I both applaud and support all efforts to promote and work for freedom, whatever particular methods are advocated or employed.
I emphasize most people do not really want freedom. What most people want is safety and guarantees. Most people do not really even know what freedom is, and anyone born in the last 35 to 40 years has no firsthand experience with what it is like to be truly free. If freedom is ever going to be restored, or at least the march of encroaching government oppression and tyranny halted, we need all the freedom fighters we can get.
The Best Method?
So, what is the correct means to freedom. Do we attempt to reform the government? Do we educate the electorate so they will vote for the right candidates? Do we educate people to understand, no candidates are for freedom, and that some other kind of action is required? Is voting the answer, or is it time? Do we just wait for the absurd fiscal, domestic, and foreign policies to produce the inevitable economic and social collapse they must, or do we, "shoot the bastards," before that happens?
The variety of solutions for restoring freedom is almost endless, and those seriously pursuing the cause of freedom fall into a number of different, "camps," each advocating or working for their view of how freedom should be restored. While the objective is the same for all these people, most do not even know there are other freedom lovers in other camps, or if they know, they dismiss them as crackpots, ineffective, uninformed, unphilosophical, or "unrealistic."
Some may be any or all of these things, but the very idea of freedom is that every individual must pursue their objectives by their own lights. Where we agree we can choose to cooperate and support one another, and where we disagree, we are free to act on our own and argue for our views. However much we disagree, even if we think others efforts are doomed to failure, on the issue of freedom, we know they are on our side. On that issue we must agree, and wherever possible both support and encourage one another, and cooperate in any way we can, without compromising our own principles and purposes, of course. In the end, if the cause of freedom is lost, no other cause matters.
Who Is Fighting for Freedom?
If individual freedom is your love, even if you disagree with everything else you think other freedom lovers stand for, they are your friends. They are on your side. They want you to be free. Here are some of your friends:
There are the Objectivists—who emphasize that philosophy necessary to freedom. The modern freedom movements, to a very large extent, owe their impetus to the founder or Objectivism, Ayn Rand. In The Virtue of Selfishness she laid out the principles demonstrating why freedom is as much an essential to human life as food and water. In Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal she shows why a free economy is necessary for individual freedom, and that any other economic or political system is oppression and tyranny.
Objectivists, themselves, do not all agree on the best method of promoting freedom. Most believe it will take the spread of Objectivism itself. They believe, so long as people do not understand the moral and practical principles that make individual liberty necessary and possible, any government that is set up, is bound to devolve into tyranny.
This view believes the way to freedom is the teaching and evangelical route. A good example is a recent article on SOLO (Sense Of Life Objectivists) Marketing A Free Society: Education, Persuasion, and Conversion by Edward W. Younkins.
Solo is one of the three best known promoters of Objectivism. The other two are ARI (The Ayn Rand Institute), and TOC (The Objectivist Center). There is a great deal of disagreement between these three, although TOC and SOLO do work together on a number of levels. What unites them is the belief that every individual exists solely for the sake of his own enjoyment of life.
There are the Wolfeians—Claire Wolfe recently remarked on her BLOG, how strange it seemed to her to have her name used as a metaphor for when a shooting war would begin by the use of such expressions as, "Clare Wolfe time," or "half past Clair Wolfe." Those expressions are based on the, by now, famous quote from 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution with which I began this article.
There is not really a movement called, "Wolfeians," (as far as I know), but there are a great many very vocal, very active, individuals with a variety of different philosophical and political stances that are joined by the central issues addressed by Claire Wolfe in her books, articles, web page, BLOG, and Forum.
Most "Wolfeians" are Libertarians, but not all. They are like those who appear at the The Freedom Summit sponsored by Ernest and Donna Hancock with Marc and Amy Victor. Ernest hosts the radio talk show, "Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock." "The Freedom Summit is an annual seminar dedicated to promoting and advancing human freedom. To that end, the Freedom Summit offers speakers who have demonstrated their effectiveness in presenting the intellectual case for freedom."
Here are some examples: The 2001 summit included as speakers: Jacob Hornberger, Bob Levy, Vin Suprynowicz, Clint Bolick, and more; The 2002 summit inlcuded Walter Block, Lew Rockwell, Sharon Harris, L. Neil Smith, and more; The 2003 summit included Nathaniel Branden, Harry Browne, Boston T. Party (really), Representative Ron Paul and more. Scheduled for the October 8-10, 2004 summit are Ernest Hancock, Doug Casey, Don Boudreaux, Claire Wolfe, Mary Ruwart, Justin Raimondo, Lazarus Long (really), George Smith, Jim Peron, and Ken Schoolland.
There are the gulchers—which is what some "Wolfeians" and others call themselves. Those unfamiliar with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will have no idea what that means; and I am not going to tell you, because, if you love freedom, you must read that book.
But, I will give you a hint. The idea behind gulching is leaving the present political-economic system. It is not, "escape." Government itself has no wealth and no power of its own, all its wealth is confiscated from others and all its power is the power to harm and destroy, but even that must be expropriated from the citizens who produce it. Gulchers are just refusing to finance their own enslavement. If everyone did that, the government would collapse; but everyone is not going to do that.
There are the Libertarians—who also include a wide spectrum of philosophies and views. They are essentially united on one basic principle, that there is no legitimate purpose for, or function of, government except to protect its citizens from the threat or initiation of the use force by any other individuals or groups, foreign or domestic. Everything else, in their view, develops from that.
The Libertarians are very active, possibly the most active of any group in the freedom movement. They have their own political party and own presidential candidate.
While there are wide differences in their views, next to Objectivists, the Libertarians probably have the most intellectual ammunition in their arsenal. The Journal of Libertarian Studies from Ludwig von Mises Institute, and the Center for Libertarian Studies exploring the libertarian theory and practice of Murray N. Rothbard are examples.
There are the, "free-staters"—at least two varieties of them.
The Free State Project was initiated by Jason Soren's 7/23/01 The Libertarian Enterprise article, "Announcement: The Free State Project."
The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people who agree to move to New Hampshire if that many sign up. So far they have 5,978 signed-up. If they fail to get 20,000 signed-up by Sept. 2006, no one is required to make the move. Their purpose is explained in their "Statement of Intent:"
"I hereby state my solemn intent to move to the state of New Hampshire. Once there, I will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." I certainly hope they succeed; I live in New Hampshire.
But there is a competitor on the horizon, theFree State Wyoming project sponsored by Boston T. Party. To make his work, he is only setting his sights on the committment of 4000 people. I hope he succeeds as well. Wyoming is a beautiful state; it would be nice if it were also free.
There are the conservatives—who may or may not be for freedom, depending on whether they ever figure out what it is.
There is an extremely successful conservative forum, Free Republic which is very active and has over 100,000 signed members. They say in their welcoming page, "Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America."
So far so good.
In a personal statement of the founder it says, "In our continuing fight for freedom, for America and our constitution and against totalitarianism, socialism, tyranny, terrorism, etc., Free Republic stands firmly on the side of right, i.e., the conservative side."
If that is what "conservatism" is, we applaud it. The problem is, most "political conservatives" are not for freedom at all. In most cases, they defend "economic" freedom, but otherwise have an agenda which includes some set of moral behavioral standards they believe ought to imposed on everyone by force of law. What they mean by, "conservative," is "Republican," and actively defend anything a Republican administration does, however outrageous, oppressive, or tyrannical.
Some percentage (probably not large) of posters to Free Republic really do want freedom and know what it is. The rest think freedom means freedom from temptation, or risk, or worry, or responsibility—which is how most Americans today think of freedom.
Choose Your Friends
If I must compromise my principles to have friends, I prefer no friends at all. To the extent that others seek freedom and fight for individual liberty, even if we disagree on all other things, at least on that point, I judge them as friends. No one can seek freedom without being in favor of my freedom. There are not many who seek freedom for themselves, and you can be sure they have no interest in yours or mine. In the struggle for liberty, we must take our friends and allies wherever we find them.
