The Libertarian Party Alternative

December 1984

A speech given by Wayne Marsden at the October 26th Supper Club.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is indeed a privilege to address the resolution before us tonight. "Libertarians should join other political parties and not start their own." I say not. I will argue that since libertarian thought represents the best interests of the vast majority of Canadians, and since the existing parties represent the entrenched interests of those who benefit from the status quo, and who seek no expanded liberty and opportunity for those outside their narrow elites, then libertarians ought to start just such new parties, across the nation.

Let us look briefly at the arguments in favour of the resolution. Firstly, "Libertarian influence within an old party could very well lead to enacting a policy in a particular area which would be acceptable in principle to libertarians." For instance, the free trade elements in the PC caucus may be able to negotiate free, or at least freer trade with other nations. Let us hope they succeed. But too often we find the influence runs the opposite way, that the libertarian principles of some politicians become ceremonial, trotted out only for show, and quickly stowed away as the exigencies of government, and partly discipline seem to requirement.

Besides, positive influence can be exercised from outside the party, in well-organized and financed campaigns for or against particular policies - such as the present campaign of the Chamber of Commerce to encourage deregulation and free trade.

Secondly, "Libertarians within an existing party could work to not only influence, but eventually convert the entire party to a libertarian perspective and program." This argument underestimates the intelligence and the political skills of the current leadership of any party libertarians might join. These men are acquainted with libertarian thought; they are not ignorant of the ideas we profess and the kinds of policies we would like to see instituted - they simply believe otherwise - they oppose us, and they would charge libertarians within their party who attempted to change that party with subversion - and they would be right. A party so enfeebled as to be taken over in this manner would be an empty prize.

Now let us examine the directly negative consequences of supporting an existing party. First and foremost, we would be lending strength to bad policy.

In return for concessions in some areas, probably buried deeply in platform documents and never instituted, libertarians would have to accept the entirety of the party platform, even those provisions which were directly contrary to libertarian principles. That is factional politics. That leads to policies of privilege which favour special interests. And that would be the death knell of principled libertarian political action.

In contrast, the establishment of a distinctly libertarian party, by whatever name, would provide the vehicle to present an integrated, equitable, and consistent political program to the entire electorate. No subparagraph to placate a libertarian ginger group within a non-libertarian party can possibly convey a vision of what a truly free society would be like. Rather, the exploitation of concepts such as "free enterprise" by power brokers of the old parties brings into disrepute, through unfairness and hypocrisy, the very ideals we strive to uphold.

By becoming partisans of one old-line party, with the possibilities that creates of influence and conversion of its members, we would forego the opportunity a new party would provide to convert supporters of all the old parties. In this province, the 45% of the electorate who vote for the NDP, are not a bloc of statist socialists who could never support the libertarian vision.

They are not much different in their perceptions from thee and me - that the economy is largely managed by the interests of large, established corporations and other special interests to the exclusion of the legitimate interests of smaller and newer entrepreneurs and ordinary working people. Naturally, we regret that they support a party whose solution to this injustice is an even greater interference by the state in the life of individuals and the community, but the political options in this province and in Canada as a whole have been limited.

Similarly, many of the 50% who vote for social credit do so only because they detest the policies which have been and which would be again instituted by an NDP government.

We know that libertarian thought represents the immediate best interests of most people in BC, in Canada, and throughout the world. Our natural constituency is the entire productive class - business men and women, working men and women - all who are neither high-ranking bureaucrats nor influential beneficiaries of government policy. Therefore, the political strategy we employ ought to reflect that reality. We are not a special interest group or a tiny minority who might gain some extra leverage by visibly supporting a larger political grouping - although we might attract such support ourselves.

We do grave injustice to the principles we believe in, and to those who have perished in there defence over the centuries, if we heed the counsel of those who maintain that we ought to become a mere faction of such parties, which are intellectually bankrupt in their platform, morally bankrupt when in power, and spiritually bankrupt in their very essence.

As long as libertarians identify themselves with existing power elites, we will never change the root policies of the parties those elites control. Rather, the illusion of closeness to the levers of political power will blind us to the reality of our political impotence. As one pressure group among others, we will be alternatively threatened and cajoled - threatened by the possibility that by rocking the boat we will cause the opposition to gain control of government - and cajoled by promises and rumors of a secret libertarian agenda which will be enacted only if we remain loyal team players.

The founding of a libertarian party is the only political act which contains the possibility of actually exercising leadership and eventually governance. Decades of supporting the old-line parties have not resulted in libertarians in cabinet or even on the back benches. The sole result of these years of compliance with the political status quo has been the loss of time in organizing to effect real political change.

Libertarians were in the forefront of the glorious revolution of 1688; Libertarians pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honour in the American Revolution of 1776; Libertarians smashed the slave system and created an enterprising capitalist economy in the late 1800's, which transfigured the world. Now, near the end of a century of war and tyranny we face an even greater challenge. Modern totalitarianism and authoritarianism pose far greater threats to the liberty and welfare of mankind than the House of Stuart, King George III, or the mercantilists, and slave owners. If we, who have understanding lack the faith in the power of the human mind and spirit to overcome oppression, then who will provide a positive vision to mankind. "If the salt hath lost it savour, wherewith shall it be salted."

Let's look at the record. "Ah," my opponent might say, "you do not recognize that the present leadership of those parties we should join, the PC's federally and the Socreds provincially, are acting in good faith. They are trying to straighten things out. We have some good ideas for them, and think we can convince them to pursue freedom and liberty. Have some faith in them - you act in good faith, too. Or else we'll get the socialists back into power."

Well, what about showing some good faith with our ancestors, who came to this land to be free, who died by the thousands in wars to defeat tyranny and coercion. And what about showing some good faith with our descendents, who will live as slaves if we do not defend freedom successfully. Let's show some good faith towards our fellow citizens, who mostly yearn for freedom, but are being harried and crushed by a giant leviathan they do not seem to control. I've had good faith in the leadership of the old parties and have supported them since I was old enough to remember. I certainly wish Prime Minister Mulroney good luck and I hope we'll get freer trade and a reduced government, but I no longer wish Premier Bennett and the Socreds good luck. The people are beginning to want a change of government - and they will eventually toss the Socreds out. Unfortunately the NDP is the only opposition party in BC which has the chance of becoming government, as things stand. But the people don't want a socialist government. They would rather have something else. We are the responsible alternative.

"Oh, that takes too long, we'd be twenty years coming to power, and meanwhile be suffering from the worse of two evils. We would be perceived as narrow and sectarian - it would take years to overcome this obstacle."

Are you narrow and sectarian? Would you insist on including prominently in the party platform a pledge to privatize the provincial highway system, or would you settle for a program to put crown land into private ownership by allowing homesteading, and by selling timberland to loggers and sawmillers, and conservationists. The people of BC, after 30 years of Social Credit, own a smaller percentage of land than the people of Poland. The people aren't interested in selling the highways, but they are interested in owning land. Ask somebody!

Of course we could not be narrow and sectarian. Why would we press for abolishing public schools when what the people want is a voucher system of education - with liberal provisions for establishing private schools. And what about Metro Transit? Why should they have a monopoly? There are plenty of issues - dozens of reforms required and desired.

Besides, coming from nowhere with a new party is an old BC tradition. Social Credit did it in 1952. And the voters of BC could do it again in 1987. We have the same old coalition in power and the same old CCFers waiting in the wings. And a brand new bunch whom some label "cranks" appearing on the horizon - that's us.

The present government is mischievous in poisoning labor relations and in throwing the mantle of "free enterprise" around increasing state mega-projects and hurtful social policies. From the nationalization of BC Electric to the wasting of taxpayers' money on the proposed gas pipeline to true colours - government control and centralized power.

But people want more opportunity, not more welfare handouts. The people want lower taxes, not more bread and circuses. Libertarians could provide the spark which ignites an inextinguishable flame in the hearts and minds of people. Citizens of BC want a change just as all Canadians showed they wanted a change on Sept. 4th - no time could be better than now to found a new, broadly based party with libertarianism principles and a populist platform.

Think for a minute of what it means to be a libertarian. It means that you conceive that each person's life is of value, in and of itself. That high estimation of the fundamental worth and essential sacredness of every individual means that, since all other rights are derived from the sovereignty of each person, and his right to life, then we fail to act in good faith if we underestimate the virtue of British Columbians, and their ability to discern truth from falsehood, and liberty from chaos.

I, myself, when requesting by the organizer of tonight's meeting to speak for the negative side, told him that I thought there were good arguments on each side. But as I pondered the issue over the intervening weeks, I became convinced that to work within existing parties was futile, and that our only opportunity to help create a freer society was to actively engage in the creation of a new political force in the province. If the validity of my argument is denied, must we then concede that mankind must always accept second best, must not be allowed to believe that a just and equitable society is possible, and that the mind is impotent?

The argument of expediency is always attractive. It appears practical. It appears realistic. But it has no future - it has no life in it. Libertarians know that the struggle for liberty has never been an easy one, but with courage and endurance, we will triumph - mankind will not only survive but prevail.