Libertarian
Outlaw:
An Interview With
Jacob Hornberger
by
Karen De Coster
(Jacob
G. Hornberger is the founder and president of the Future of Freedom
Foundation. This interview took place on Sunday, November 12th,
2000 in Clinton Township, Michigan. Credit goes to Michigan LP'er
Diane Barnes for the "outlaw" label.)
Jacob,
you pulled out of the process of running for the Libertarian party
2000 presidential nomination. Harry Brown became that party's nominee
for the second time in a row, and again failed to attract noteworthy
numbers on the campaign trail or at the polls. In your mind, why
is the Libertarian Party failing miserably to pull in a decent following
at the national level, while Nader can attract paying crowds of
15 thousand people?
That's
a question that every LP member has to examine. I truly believe
it's because there's a disconnect within the Libertarian party.
The state LPs are extremely successful, by and large. They are electing
people to public office, their voting percentages are extremely
high even when they don't win, and you've got a Rasmussen poll that
says 16% of the American people are answering questions in the libertarian
quadrant. Also, you've got Ron Paul – the 1988 LP presidential candidate
– who just won in a landslide running as a Republican, but
he manages to win running on pure, uncompromising libertarian principles.
So
why isn't this reflected at the national level of the LP? In almost
30 years we can't elect one congressman, and most of the vote totals
are at the 1-3% level, including those totals among the party pros.
Ron Crickenberger got 1% and he's the party political director.
Joe Dean, who's been party secretary, got 2%. So your question is
a very pointed one, and I think it's a question that every libertarian
needs to be aware of.
My
own personal feeling is that there is a structure in the party that
I think is an obstacle to success rather than the key to success,
and that structure needs to be examined very carefully. The paradigm
has been put into place by officials David Bergland, Harry Browne,
Michael Emerling-Cloud, and Perry Willis. They use the party resources
to anoint a particular candidate they like, and they run this little
family enterprise. I've had a big fight in the party over this with
respect to ethics. I think the party should be totally independent,
and they should be advancing the interests of the party, not individuals.
Therefore,
I am beginning to suspect that this disconnect is associated with
the structure of the party, and I think that if we abandon that
paradigm, and adopt a paradigm where the national LP is not advancing
the interests of any particular presidential candidate for four
years, it is really going to advance the interests of the party.
I think that things are going to start changing. The party is going
to start opening up, people are going to come into this party, and
they are going to be excited about it. My point is, I think it's
an internal problem rather than an external problem.
Some
of us who care greatly about the cause and about the party were
put in an awkward position. We believed that the party was engaged
in unethical conduct, so we don't feel comfortable supporting a
party that is engaged in this type of behavior. There are two alternatives:
one is to leave the party, and the other is to stay and clean it
up. I think the party is losing donations because people think that
if they donate to the party, part of their money is going to support
somebody's buddies. Once you stop that, I think it opens up the
flow of money to the LP. That's the debate I am starting in this
party. Again, this is an internal problem that I think we have to
take responsibility for.
There
are many differing philosophical views attached to those who claim
to be libertarians – in terms of social views, immigration, and
the minarchist vs. anarchist arguments, etc. What is the single
biggest issue – in your mind – that divides the Libertarian party?
I
think there are a few issues. One, of course, is abortion. I was
on the party platform committee, and there was definitely a split
in the party on that. I'd say it's approximately 35% pro-life and
65% pro-choice. But it is not an issue that is terribly divisive,
where people are threatening to leave the party, or anything remotely
like that. I would say that the immigration issue is the one that
people find the most discomfort with inside the party. And I've
noticed an even bigger tendency toward that since we've been attracting
disgruntled Republicans with the direct mail lists that the party
office has been using to attract members.
There's
also a debate about the transitional approach in terms of changing
government. Should we be talking about the gradualist approach,
or go in there and just abolish programs? That's particularly divisive
within the party, because the candidates want to appear acceptable
to the electorate, and they feel much more comfortable approaching
their ideas in the gradualist way.
These
candidates think they can sell libertarianism a little easier
by using the soft, gradualist approach?
Well
that's what they think, but I don't think it's the right approach.
I think one is better off arguing the strong moral principle of
repeal, and there is a tremendous difference in emphasis involved
there. For instance, with social security, if you are going to argue
for a plan of a reformed social security system – say allowing
people to opt out, or applying for annuities, etc., – you
are not going to be arguing about the immorality of the state taking
money from one person and giving it to another. Your focus is going
to be on why your plan is going to save these people, and how everything
is going to be okay. But if you go in there and argue for a repeal
of social security, it's a direct, moral, economic utilitarian attack
on the whole concept itself, which I think is much more important.
It
has always bothered me that so many individuals who purport to
be followers of the libertarian philosophy have the notion that
liberty and religion are mutually exclusive. What's your view
on that?
It's
a ridiculous notion. I'm a born-again Christian and a libertarian.
To me, the two are entirely consistent, and I cannot see why anybody
would find it inconsistent, except if they're saying that you're
not free because you are subject to the dictates of the Pope, or
God. But that is a voluntary choice.
For
instance, there is nothing wrong with anybody entering into a voluntary
contract for employment – even if it's long-term –
which may therefore interfere with your "freedom." And there's
no reason why people cannot exercise their free choices to pursue
God, and to obey God, and to live your life the way you want. God
says, "Thou shalt not steal," which is entirely consistent with
the moral case for liberty. He gives us free will, which argues
that people should be free to do what they want with their lives
as long as their conduct is peaceful. So the area of peaceful sin
would therefore be taken out of the hands of the state. How can
any of that be inconsistent with libertarianism?
The
libertarian movement attracts stragglers who tend to be on the
"fringe" of the movement, and only come to the party for a personal
grievance they have against government – like the "war on drugs"
issue, pornography, or homosexual rights. However, these fringe
individuals could hardly care less about greater concerns such
as the Rule of Law, Natural Rights theory, our corrupt monetary
system, private property rights, or government-imposed economic
sanctions that strangle individuals and businesses. What do libertarians
need to do to merge the interests of these fringe individuals
with mainstream libertarian thought, while managing to not offend
the true intellectuals who believe in core libertarian philosophies?
I
think in any movement you are going to attract the people that are
interested in single issues. If you call for drug legalization,
obviously you are going to attract people into your movement who
want to consume drugs. If you are going to call for a gold standard
or free-market money, you are going to attract some curmudgeon types
for whom that is the one issue. I don't think you let it consume
you. You keep operating out of your core philosophy. We are a small
movement, and we can't afford to be too selective with our followers.
I'm not sure it's a problem that some drug user will join the movement,
and mainstream America will think that libertarians are dopers.
That's the risk you take in any kind of philosophical movement.
So I think any movement to exclude people because they are different
would be totally contrary to the spirit of what we stand for. I
think you just accept it.
Following
the election boondoggle, people are starting to talk about the
fact that this country was intended to be a constitutionally limited
republic rather than a representative democracy of "mob rule."
What is your interpretation of the Founding Father's intentions
and how the two differ?
I
just don't think there's any question about the interpretation.
We were intended to be a constitutionally limited republic, and
the Founding Fathers set up the government to do certain things.
The Constitution sets forth the enumerated powers of congress, the
president, and the judicial branch, and the idea was that government
was supposed to do certain set things and nothing else. In other
words, if the power was not enumerated then it couldn't be exercised.
That was clearly understood for many, many decades.
It's
only in this century where all that has been totally turned on its
head. In other words, people think that to determine whether you
have a right or not, you go look in the Constitution, and then you're
read your constitutional rights. The Constitution has never been
a grant of rights. Even the Bill of Rights was inappropriately named.
It's the Bill of Prohibitions. So I think the idea of constitutionally
limited government can protect us from the democratic mob rule.
You look at the 1st Amendment and the 2nd
Amendment, etc., and it's all about limiting the power of the majority.
That was the original idea, and the right idea. That is a very important
concept to be stressing to people – that we are being protected
from the rule of the majority.
Thanks
to the government's latest failure in allowing the Gore people
to turn the election process on its head, people are now questioning
the electoral college, and the validity of the entire US election
process. What is the Libertarian solution to the recent election
snafu?
I
don't see what the problem is in this election. We are simply following
the original idea of elections. We are counting votes. It's a close
vote, and that happens in elections. Nobody can ever guarantee that
it is going to be a landslide. Counting votes is not a crisis. The
winner may win by one vote, so what's the problem with that?
I've
noticed that Hillary Clinton is now calling for an amendment to
eliminate the electoral college, and I think we need to be very,
very careful before we start tampering with this sacred document.
I haven't really researched why the Founding Fathers instituted
the electoral college, but my basic understanding is that it is
to protect you against the passionate "mob-rule" democracy. I think
we ought to be very careful before we jump to a conclusion that
this system needs to be eliminated.
Where
will you be in 2004? Are you looking at an LP presidential run?
 In
the next 2 or 3 years, we need to concentrate on building the party,
and not who is going to run for president. We should build the parties
at the local level, because that is where the base is. That is where
the main focus should be. If I were to talk about a presidential
run, I would be violating my own edict.
November
16, 2000
Karen
De Coster is a politically incorrect CPA, and an MA student
in economics at Walsh College in Michigan.
Copyright
© 2000 Karen De Coster
Karen
De Coster Archives
|
