Prior to the 2022 Libertarian Party national convention in Reno, I was certain that the L.P.’s defining message would be restored to one based on genuine libertarian principles. That’s what people were told was going to happen in the lead-up to the convention. Known as the “Reno Reset” convention, the Mises Caucus, a rightwing group that was set to take control of the party from the “Pragmatists,” whose central message has long been based on compromise of principle for the sake of garnering votes, made it clear that they were dead-set on restoring the Libertarian Party as the “party of principle.” Like other libertarians who advocated a principled, uncompromising approach to advancing libertarianism, I was excited.
It didn’t take long for me to realize, however, that there was nothing to get excited about. That’s because it soon became clear that while the rightwing libertarian hierarchy that took control over the party loathed the Pragmatists, the rightwing positions were no different from those of the Pragmatists — and sometimes even worse.
A perfect example of this phenomenon involves education, an area in which there was perfect alignment between the Libertarian rightwing and the Pragmatists and, for that matter, the Republican Party.
The L.P. embrace of school vouchers
Soon after the Reno Reset convention, I was invited to an L.P. fundraising event in Arlington, Virginia, which is just outside Washington, D.C. It was organized and hosted by the rightwing hierarchy that had just won complete control over the national party at the Reno convention. The event was oriented toward big donors to the Libertarian Party. After I arrived at the event, I was stunned to learn that the featured speaker at the event was Cory DeAngelis, who is the premier promoter of school vouchers in the country. DeAngelis delivered a speech extolling the virtues of school vouchers or what is commonly called “school choice.”
What’s wrong with that? Well, only that school vouchers are a socialist program, one that is designed to improve the state’s socialist educational system through “choice” and “competition.”
What’s wrong with that? Well, only that libertarians have always been — and continue to be — anti-socialism. They write articles, give speeches, host podcasts, author books, and publish op-eds decrying the evils of socialism generally — while fiercely advocating one of the most socialist programs in American society — school vouchers.
The libertarian non-aggression principle
Vouchers are based on taxation. The state taxes one group of people to whom the money belongs and uses the money to fund the education of another group of people to whom the money does not belong. That’s a classic socialist program.
Moreover, as every libertarian knows, taxation is based on the initiation of force. If you don’t believe me, try not paying your taxes and advertise it openly and widely. You will be hit with harassment, abuse, garnishments, attachments, liens, foreclosures, arrest, prosecution, and even possibly incarceration. You might even be forced to die in prison, like they did with Irwin Schiff.
Why is the initiation of force a problem? Because the core principle of libertarianism is the non-aggression principle. It holds that it is morally illegitimate for anyone, including libertarians, to initiate force against someone else.
Thus, through their advocacy of school vouchers, we have the spectacle of both the Pragmatists and the L.P. rightwingers advocating a socialist program that violates the core principle of the philosophy to which they are both ostensibly committed.
Libertarianism and majority rule
The problem is that vouchers have become such an ingrained part of the Libertarian Party that hardly anyone questions them. The notion is that since, say, 95% of the members of the party support school vouchers, then it must be a libertarian position.
But whether a position is libertarian or not is not determined by majority vote. It is determined, pure and simple, by the libertarian non-aggression principle.
The problem is aggravated by the fact that this mindset is mirrored in the libertarian movement generally. For the past several decades, many libertarians, including some libertarian educational foundations and think tanks at both the national and state level, have come to embrace and support school vouchers, which has created the illusion that this socialist position is now a widely accepted “libertarian” position.
But it’s not a libertarian position. That’s because the supporters of school vouchers have never been able to circumvent the core obstacle — that pesky non-aggression principle, the core principle of the libertarian philosophy.
Over the years, libertarian proponents of school vouchers, upon being confronted with this discomforting challenge, have responded, “Oh, you’re just trying to show that you’re more libertarian or more principled than us voucher proponents.” But that’s not the case. School vouchers are not “less libertarian.” They are not libertarian at all for one simple reason: they violate the core principle of the libertarian philosophy. Thus, school vouchers are, in fact, anti-libertarian. They are simply a statist program that is being advocated by libertarians.
Socialism and “Project Decentralization"
The problem has grown even worse in the Libertarian Party. The rightwing element that now controls and dominates the party also fervently supports public (i.e., government) schooling in general. This is reflected not only by their claim that school vouchers will improve the public-schooling system through “choice” and “competition” but also, and more important, by their fervent quest to get L.P. members elected to school boards.
It would be difficult to find a better example of a socialist program than public (i.e., government) schooling. It is based on the socialist principle of central planning — one in which education is centrally planned by a governmental entity — at the federal, state, or local level. Funding is through the force of taxation. “Customers” are acquired through compulsory-attendance laws. The state hires the schoolteachers, sets the curriculum, and selects the books. Indoctrination, conformity, regimentation, and deference to authority are ingrained into every student. Public or government schooling can easily be called “army lite.”
Yet, here you have the Libertarian Party now striving, as one of its core programs, to get Libertarians elected to school boards. The rightwing hierarchy that now runs the party calls it “Project Decentralization.” The idea is to show people that Libertarians are as good, if not better, than Republicans and Democrats at running socialist programs. It’s also to gain respect and credibility in electoral politics by Libertarians becoming respectable and credible supporters of and participants in a statist program.
And it’s all considered perfectly normal, especially by the Libertarian Party rightwing that has come to control and dominate the party. And why not? Favoring school vouchers and public schooling are considered perfectly normal within the Republican Party, which is not governed by the libertarian non-aggression principle or, for that matter, any other freedom principle. Why wouldn’t they be considered perfectly normal within the Republican-lites inside the Libertarian Party?
Separate school and state
There is one — and only one — genuine libertarian position when it comes to education. That position is the separation of education and the state, just as our ancestors separated religion and state. That is, the repeal of school taxes and compulsory-attendance laws. The selling off of all school buildings. The end of all state involvement in education.
Over the years, I have heard Libertarians exclaiming, “That’s too hard, Jacob. No one will accept it. Public schooling is in our state’s constitution. We need to settle for calling for the abolition of the federal Department of Education and then join up with our Republican cousins by advocating school vouchers and running for local school boards.” In fact, my hunch is that school vouchers and running for school boards have become so deeply ingrained in L.P. members that only a very few can now competently make the genuine libertarian case for the separation of school and state.
At the same time, these same Libertarians will decry socialism in general terms. Thus, the message that has come to define the Libertarian Party and its presidential campaigns, has come to be: “Educational socialism is bad. So, we Libertarians are like Republicans. We want to abolish the federal Department of Education and work to improve public schooling with school vouchers and by becoming members of our school boards. We will do a better job at making educational socialism work than Republicans. Vote for us instead of them.”
Chase Oliver’s .4 percent
In a recent Substack column, I pointed out that after the 2024 presidential campaign of Chase Oliver, L.P. members expressed the lament that has become standard after presidential elections: “Golly, Jacob. Woe is us! The 99.6 percent of American voters who didn’t vote for our presidential candidate rejected libertarianism again. I guess people are still not ready for libertarianism. I just don’t get it, Jacob. Everyone has a libertarian streak in him. Why do they continue to reject libertarianism? Woe is us, Jacob!”
So far, in this series of articles, I have examined Republican-lite positions that have come to define the Libertarian Party on three of the most important issues of our time — Social Security, Medicare, and education. I have shown that all three positions are actually anti-libertarian, notwithstanding the fact that L.P. members (and some libertarians) have labeled them and embraced them as “libertarian” positions.
Thus, the good news is that those 99.6 percent of voters who did not vote for Oliver did not reject libertarianism. They rejected statism that has been labeled and widely accepted as “libertarianism” within the Libertarian Party. This will become even clearer as we examine more Republican-lite positions, such as on immigration.
As I repeatedly emphasized in my 2024 campaign for the L.P. presidential nomination, I stand with those 99.6 percent who rejected the overall message that has come to define the Libertarian Party and its presidential campaigns. I believe they are right to reject that message for the simple reason that a Republican-lite message is not a libertarian one.