There have been a number of assaults from libertarians on the Gary Johnson campaign, alleging that it is behaving in an un-libertarian manner. I think these people mean well, and they're clearly very principled individuals, but I don't think they see the full picture. In this post I'm going to go through a few of the attacks on the Gary Johnson campaign by libertarians and try to show them that they should chill out.
Gary Johnson Accepts Public Funding
Many libertarians have found it ironic that a libertarian, that opposes public funding for most anything, would accept public funding for elections. And they find it especially distasteful that he's sued the government for funds that it promised but has not delivered. I, myself, don't think that public funding for elections would exist in a perfect world, but we go into the elections with the government we have not the government we wish we had (to paraphrase a certain Secretary of Defense). The Republicans and Democrats get tens of millions from the government, I don't see why we shouldn't fight for the few hundred thousand that their formulas legally allow us to have. I don't think unilateral disarmament is a good idea. I don't see why we should be expected to walk into their backyard and play their rigged game with both hands tied behind our back.
And I don't even think that this is that bad. The funds don't come from coercive taxation, they come from the $3 check off box that appears on individual income tax returns. So I don't think the people complaining about this particular problem have a deep understanding of the situation or they wouldn't have anything to complain about in the first place.
But even if the money did come from coercive taxation, there's nothing wrong with a libertarian accepting public funding. Let me cite the great libertarian Walter Block here, who argues that not only is it allowable for a libertarian to take money from the government, it is a positive virtue. It's relieving the government of ill-gotten gains. It's re-appropriation of stolen loot. Ayn Rand (in her book Atlas Shrugged) has argued this point too. And Murray Rothbard has as well.
We don't have to eschew use of the roads just because the government built them. We don't have to avoid public schools and public parks. It is not necessary for us all to become martyrs.
Gary Johnson Supports the Fair Tax
A lot of complaints that I see around all the time in libertarian circles are aimed the fact that Gary Johnson supports the "Fair Tax." These people certainly mean well, but I think they're missing the point. The point is that the Fair Tax would be an improvement over the current tax system, not that it would usher in utopia.
Milton Friedman said, and I completely agree, that it is necessary to have more than just a vision of the utopia: we have to have positive proposals that bring us closer to utopia, proposals that get us from here to there. The Fair Tax is one of those proposals.
The IRS infringes on personal liberty every day by spying on people's income to figure out their taxes. And it puts people through hell trying to squeeze a few dollars out of them. Getting rid of the IRS is a huge step for liberty all by itself even if taxes remained the same. And the Fair Tax does that.
But even ignoring that point, some taxes are worse than others (more on that in a future post). Some taxes are more harmful to growth than others. The Fair Tax gets rid of the most harmful taxes, such as the corporate income tax and the capital gains tax. This is a huge step.
Consumption taxes are the least bad taxes, so if we're going to have a tax (which really isn't up for debate in America today) a consumption tax is the way to go. Once we get that, then we can argue for lowering the rate and eventually ending federal taxation. And when people see what they're paying in taxes every time they go to the store, don't you think they'll be a little bit more open to lowering those taxes? I do.
I think we need to keep in mind that every revolution in history has, in some way, been a marginal revolution. Small steps are important. We should have a vision of the utopia, but we can't stop there. We also need to focus on how to get from here to there.
Gary Johnson Brought An Anti-Trust Suit Against The Debate Commission
So, in case you didn't hear about this one, the Gary Johnson campaign brought an anti-trust lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates (read it here). Some libertarians think this is un-libertarian because libertarians oppose anti-trust regulation.
Personally, I think it's hilarious. It's a perfect illustration of the absurdity of anti-trust. A lot of libertarians who have read through the suit say it's ridiculous, but I don't think it's any more ridiculous than most anti-trust lawsuits. It's almost to anti-trust what Bastiat's petition from the candle makers was to trade tariffs and quotas.
I want to see them defend this law while keeping Gary Johnson out of the debates (which is what we all know will happen anyway). Why don't they have to play by their own ridiculous rules? Again, why are we expected to walk into their backyard and play their rigged game with both hands tied behind our back? If it brings up a discussion on the absurdity of anti-trust, then good. And if it gets him in the debates, that would also be good. Then maybe we'll win and then we can repeal the anti-trust laws.
