Highlights in bold type selected by James Craig Green
(see my full text blog in link below)
The Death of Politics by Karl Hess (full version)
Libertarianism
is the view that each man is the absolute owner of his life, to use and dispose
of as he sees fit: that all man's social actions should be voluntary: and that
respect for every other man's similar and equal ownership of life and, by
extension, the property and fruits of that life is the ethical basis of a
humane and open society. In this view, the only — repeat, only — function of law or
government is to provide the sort of self-defense against violence that an
individual, if he were powerful enough, would provide for himself...
Libertarianism
is rejected by the modern Left — which preaches individualism but practices
collectivism. Capitalism is rejected by the modern Right — which preaches
enterprise but practices protectionism. The libertarian faith in the mind of
men is rejected by religionists who have faith only in the sins of man. The
libertarian insistence that men be free to spin cables of steel, as well as
dreams of smoke, is rejected by hippies who adore nature but spurn creation.
The libertarian insistence that each man is a sovereign land of liberty, with
his primary allegiance to himself, is rejected by patriots who sing of freedom
but also shout of banners and boundaries. There is no operating movement in the
world today that is based upon a libertarian philosophy. If there were, it
would be in the anomalous position of using political power to abolish
political power...
Once
the power of the community becomes in any sense normative, rather than merely
protective, it is difficult to see where any lines may be drawn to limit
further transgressions against individual freedom. In fact, the lines have not
been drawn. They will never be drawn by political parties that argue merely the
cost of programs or institutions founded on state power. Actually, the lines
can be drawn only by a radical questioning of power itself, and by the
libertarian vision that sees man as capable of moving on without the
encumbering luggage of laws and politics that do not merely preserve man's
right to his life but attempt, in addition, to tell him how to live it.
For
many conservatives, the bad dream that haunts their lives and their political
position (which many sum up as "law and order" these days) is one of
riot. To my knowledge, there is no limit that conservatives would place upon
the power of the state to suppress riots...
The
most incredible convolution in the thinking that attacked Goldwater as
reactionary — which he isn't — rather than radical — which he is — came in
regard to nuclear weapons. In that area he was specifically damned for daring
to propose that the control of these weapons be shared, and even fully placed,
in the multinational command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, rather
than left to the personal, one-man discretion of the president of the United
States...
To
return to the point: the most vital question today about politics — not in
politics — is the same sort of question that is plaguing Christianity.
Superficially, the Christian question seems simply what kind of religion should
be chosen. But basically, the question is whether any irrational or mystical
forces are supportable, as a way to order society, in a world increasingly able
and ready to be rational. The political version of the question may be stated
this way: Will men continue to submit to rule by politics, which has always
meant the power of some men over other men, or are we ready to go it alone
socially, in communities of voluntarism, in a world more economic and cultural
than political, just as so many now are prepared to go it alone metaphysically
in a world more of reason than religion?
The radical and revolutionary answer that a libertarian, laissez-faire position makes to that question is not quite anarchy. The libertarian, laissez-faire movement is, actually, if embarrassingly for some, a civil-rights movement. But it is antipolitical, in that it builds diversified power to be protected against government, even to dispense with government to a major degree, rather than seeking power to protect government or to perform any special social purpose.
The radical and revolutionary answer that a libertarian, laissez-faire position makes to that question is not quite anarchy. The libertarian, laissez-faire movement is, actually, if embarrassingly for some, a civil-rights movement. But it is antipolitical, in that it builds diversified power to be protected against government, even to dispense with government to a major degree, rather than seeking power to protect government or to perform any special social purpose.
The big
businessmen who operate the major broadcast networks are not known for
suggesting, as a laissez-faire concept would insist, that competition for
channels and audiences be wide open and unregulated. As a consequence, of course,
the networks get all the government control that they deserve, accepting it in
good cheer because, even if censored, they are also protected from competition...
In short, there is no evidence whatever that modern conservatives subscribe to the "your-life-is-your-own" philosophy upon which libertarianism is founded. An interesting illustration that conservatism not only disagrees with libertarianism but is downright hostile to it is that the most widely known libertarian author of the day, Miss Ayn Rand, ranks only a bit below, or slightly to the side of, Leonid Brezhnev as an object of diatribe in National Review. Specifically, it seems, she is reviled on the Right because she is an atheist, daring to take exception to the National Review notion that man's basically evil nature (stemming from original sin) means he must be held in check by a strong and authoritarian social order...
In short, there is no evidence whatever that modern conservatives subscribe to the "your-life-is-your-own" philosophy upon which libertarianism is founded. An interesting illustration that conservatism not only disagrees with libertarianism but is downright hostile to it is that the most widely known libertarian author of the day, Miss Ayn Rand, ranks only a bit below, or slightly to the side of, Leonid Brezhnev as an object of diatribe in National Review. Specifically, it seems, she is reviled on the Right because she is an atheist, daring to take exception to the National Review notion that man's basically evil nature (stemming from original sin) means he must be held in check by a strong and authoritarian social order...
Governments
wage war. The power of life that they may claim in running hospitals or feeding
the poor is just the mirror image of the power of death that they also claim —
in filling those hospitals with wounded and in devastating lands on which food
could be grown. "But man is aggressive," Right and Left chant from
the depths of their pessimism. And, to be sure, he is. But if he were left
alone, if he were not regulated into states or services, wouldn't that
aggression be directed toward conquering his environment, and not other men?
At another warlike level, it is the choice of aggression, against politically perpetuated environment more than against men, that marks the racial strife in America today. Conservatives, in one of their favorite lapses of logic — states' rights — nourished modern American racism by supporting laws, particularly in Southern states, that gave the state the power to force businessmen to build segregated facilities. (Many businessmen, to be sure, wanted to be "forced," thus giving their racism the seal of state approval.)...
At another warlike level, it is the choice of aggression, against politically perpetuated environment more than against men, that marks the racial strife in America today. Conservatives, in one of their favorite lapses of logic — states' rights — nourished modern American racism by supporting laws, particularly in Southern states, that gave the state the power to force businessmen to build segregated facilities. (Many businessmen, to be sure, wanted to be "forced," thus giving their racism the seal of state approval.)...
Power
and authority, as substitutes for performance and rational thought, are the
specters that haunt the world today. They are the ghosts of awed and
superstitious yesterdays. And politics is their familiar. Politics, throughout
time, has been an institutionalized denial of man's ability to survive through
the exclusive employment of all his own powers for his own welfare. And
politics, throughout time, has existed solely through the resources that it has
been able to plunder from the creative and productive people whom it has, in
the name of many causes and moralities, denied the exclusive employment of all
their own powers for their own welfare.
Ultimately, this must mean that politics denies the rational nature of man. Ultimately, it means that politics is just another form of residual magic in our culture — a belief that somehow things come from nothing; that things may be given to some without first taking them from others; that all the tools of man's survival are his by accident or divine right and not by pure and simple inventiveness and work.
Politics has always been the institutionalized and established way in which some men have exercised the power to live off the output of other men. But even in a world made docile to these demands, men do not need to live by devouring other men.
Politics does devour men. A laissez-faire world would liberate men. And it is in that sort of liberation that the most profound revolution of all may be just beginning to stir. It will not happen overnight, just as the lamps of rationalism were not quickly lighted and have not yet burned brightly. But it will happen — because it must happen. Man can survive in an inclement universe only through the use of his mind. His thumbs, his nails, his muscles, and his mysticism will not be enough to keep him alive without it.
Ultimately, this must mean that politics denies the rational nature of man. Ultimately, it means that politics is just another form of residual magic in our culture — a belief that somehow things come from nothing; that things may be given to some without first taking them from others; that all the tools of man's survival are his by accident or divine right and not by pure and simple inventiveness and work.
Politics has always been the institutionalized and established way in which some men have exercised the power to live off the output of other men. But even in a world made docile to these demands, men do not need to live by devouring other men.
Politics does devour men. A laissez-faire world would liberate men. And it is in that sort of liberation that the most profound revolution of all may be just beginning to stir. It will not happen overnight, just as the lamps of rationalism were not quickly lighted and have not yet burned brightly. But it will happen — because it must happen. Man can survive in an inclement universe only through the use of his mind. His thumbs, his nails, his muscles, and his mysticism will not be enough to keep him alive without it.
------------------------------------------
Karl Hess (1923–1994) was an American national-level speechwriter and author. His career included stints on the Republican Right and the New Left before he became a libertarian anarchist. The documentary film Karl Hess: Toward Liberty won the Academy Award for best short documentary in 1981. See Karl Hess's article archives.
