Today's US RDA of Libertarian Infighting

Just received this message from Bureaucrash. I have no idea what the source of the tension is, other than the usual urge for hair-splitting and anathemas. If there's more to it, explain in the comments:

As you all know since the beginning of Bureaucrash the position of Crasher-in-Chief has always been held by very principled libertarians. All were welcomed to be members of the Bureaucrash community so long as they shared the desire to decrease the roll of the state in our lives. Passionate freedom fighters Ryan Oprea, Jason Talley, and Pete Eyre have guided the organization as members and not as top down masters by encouraging people to find their own path to liberty and offering assistance along the way. I had hoped to continue in this tradition if I was passed the sledgehammer. Jason and Pete were some of my earliest supporters, and I thank them for that. There were several other applicants for the crasher-in-chief (CiC) position that I would have gladly worked alongside as they followed the trails blazed by their CiC forerunners.

CEI has decided that tradition has no virtue, and crasher quantity is far more important than crasher quality. Over the past several years they have attempted to exert more control over BC, stifling several pro-liberty projects, hamstringing others, discouraging some issues and encouraging others that fit their narrow vision of liberty that coincides with the interests of their donors. Jason and Pete proved difficult to control, and I would be no better so they hired an outsider with no knowledge of our community. They chose someone that they wouldn't have to fight with or attempt to mold. I cannot blame them for their hiring decision, because to them it makes sense. Bureaucrash became their brand several years ago and they can do with it what they wish.

Lee Doren to some extent is as much a victim as any of us. He was hired to turn Bureaucrash into a youth outreach organization by a conservatarian think tank. Having no prior knowledge of Bureaucrash tt was not unreasonable for him to expect a crowd that shared similar views. He was also not given help for feedback from CEI after being hired; he was given a site and a password and told to make it work. His views may not be in line with ours, but they are what his superiors were looking for. We could perhaps fault him for taking a job with an organization where he strongly disagrees with the majority of active members, or at least being woefully uninformed about the goals of views of that group but, most likely, he was brought in to reform those things anyway. He is just doing his job, and as this is a voluntary organization we should remember that every government employee is more deserving of scorn and ridicule than he.

Because of CEI's clear disdain for Bureaucrash's traditions, and complete lack of respect for all of us, the Crashers, I feel it is time to turn our backs on the Bureaucrash brand. I will no longer be hosting the Podcrash, and will be returning all the equipment to CEI. If they are to offer me the position of Crasher-in-Chief, I cannot in good conscious accept it knowing what they want to turn BC into. I cannot continue to contribute my time, labor, and money to what is becoming a front group for an organization that is aligning itself with the authoritarian right instead of those that love liberty the most.

I would be honored if you would join me in finding somewhere else to unite against the ever growing state. I have joined another group, the Free Agents Network at http://www.facebook.com/l/;Fr33Agents.net, and http://www.facebook.com/l/;Fr33Agents.ning.com, I think we can all work well together there, and welcome your participation.

Yours in Liberty,
Xaq Fixx
[e-mail]

Comments

[Warren]

I have no stomach for fusionists. CEI has always been too cozy with the ‘God, Guts, and Guns’ crowd for my taste.

[Kevin]

Here is what I know via Patri Friedman’s blog, and my own experience with BC. Bureaucrash was a very radical libertarian blog. A lot of people were agorists and left-libertarians, and ancaps, and individualist anarchists. CEI, is a conservative-libertarian group that wanted to use BC as a hep youth outreach front-site. They appointed a relatively moderate guy as head crasher.
A lot of the radicals hated it because they hate being “pragmatic”, and don’t want to get involved with politics, which they see as a corrupting influence.

[Spoonman]

All I know is, Pete Eyre is a badass.

[ktc2]

Sounds like the faux libertarian religious right took over the site. I’d leave too. Would never help those jackasses.

[Forty-Two]

“they shared the desire to decrease the roll of the state in our lives.”

I desire to decrease the bun and muffin of the state in my life. Clearly this organization has no place for me.

[Warty]

Look, it’s the Popular People’s Front! SPLITTERS!!!!

[Pete Eyre]

Y’all, I think you’re all spot-on. If you’re curious, I just shared yesterday some of the reasons why I deleted my profile on Bureaucrash Social:

http://www.fr33agents.com/9/creativedestruction/

[ChrisH]

Dr. Doherty to Forensics, Dr. Doherty to Forensics!

[Alan Vanneman]

Tow the lion! Crush the roll of the state!*

*And we don’t want no stinkin’ poppyseeds neither!

[The Angry Optimist]

I must have missed the memorandum where libertarians had achieved all of its main goals and we had the luxury of shedding allies.

some libertarians are like the underpants gnomes:

A: Government is creating problem X
B: ????
C: PROFIT! FREE LIBERTARIAN SOCIETY!

[Warty]

“Other than funding, advertising, and recruiting, what has the CEI ever given us?”

Radical politics are even more boring than the relevant kind.

[David]

I was a fan of Bureaucrash even though I’m much more “moderate” than the previous leadership. Lee Doren lost me when he started getting evasive in response to questions he was being asked and because he appears to be in favor of imperialistic US foreign policy. I am not an anarchist, and I recognize that government of any sort implies force and violates the NAP. Therefore, I don’t support the NAP. It’s pretty simple. Lee Doren, on the other hand, attempts to have it both ways. He “agrees” with the NAP and also believes (as far as I can tell) in a government with a strong military and a first strike policy. Even if he’s less hawkish than he seems, he lost my support by not simply coming out and making his positions clear.

[The Angry Optimist]

“First strike” is not a violation of NAP in and of itself. “Aggression” does not have to come in the form of bombs. It can come in the form of imminent threats of bombs.

[gyakusetsu]

This is not “libertarian infighting.” It’s libertarian vs. neconservative fighting. The people executing the takeover keep trying to categorize it as minarchist vs. anarchist fight, but it certainly not.

[The Angry Optimist]

Sure. If I were an armchair psychologist, I would say that a lot of libertarians are libertarians just so they can troll/be misanthropic, and once libertarianism starts to become relevant to anybody with a modicum of power, that threatens the in-group nature of the movement.

In other words, a lot of people treat libertarianism as a hipster band they don’t want to see “sell out to the man” and say “I was a libertarian before it was cool”.

[Abe Lincoln\'s Mom]

The new “crasher in chief” dude repeatedly referred to himself as a “Mitt Romney Republican” in an interview on Free Talk Live a few weeks ago – I can’t really see how that equals libertarian, big l or otherwise.

[Spoonman]

OK, fighting with a “Mitt Romney Republican” (the fuck does that mean? is not libertarian infighting, it’s goddamn righteous.

[Granite26]

The libertarian movement is considered under the umbrella of the Republican Party by everyone except the libertarian movement.

[The Angry Optimist]

Go ahead and surf on over there and see what you think:

Bureaucrash thread “Mea Culpa”

I’ve seen bitching because this guy had the audacity to advocate for a Flat Tax, School Vouchers and he removed Truther Videos.

Bureaucrash was already irrelevant, and its immature, childish members are just proving why.

[MikeL]

@Forty-Two

Surely you’re only referring to the muffin stumps (even the homeless don’t want those.) But everyone loves the tops no matter where they come from.

[Abe Lincoln\'s Mom]

TAO, he can say all kind of things but he VOTED FOR ROMNEY IN THE PRIMARY! The guy who is supposed to be heading a radical, social activist organization is a Romneybot!

Not saying that I think that voluntaryists/anarchoboobs of various flavors are particularly effective at activism, but what did the CEI expect?

[The Angry Optimist]

ALM – and??? Tell me, in your experience, have you ever witnessed a radical libertarian become a moderate Republican? OK, good.

Now, reverse that: have you ever witnessed/seen/experienced Republicans turn into principled libertarians? ALL THE TIME.

[ondigo]

When BC started years ago, I thought it would succeed (**if** it succeeded) because of the decentralized, meme-spreading path they were pursuing. I didn’t think they would ever become a cohesive political unit. That wasn’t their mission. Their mission was to pique interest in libertarian memes. If by the use of edgy, guerrilla materials you could get people to **think** like libertarians, perhaps they would later organize and vote like libertarians. BC was just to be a crypto-organization behind that movement.

But that always would make it hard to point to success. Were the memes BC tried to spread responsible in part for the support Ron Paul received? Hard to say, because odds are if they were, the people influenced didn’t know that BC was behind the poster or slogan that got them inclined to be receptive to Paul’s message.

If it is true that BC is now being run by a Mitt Romney Republican, then BC will instantly lose whatever sheen of coolness it ever possessed. No amount of edgy hipsterness can overcome that.

[The Angry Optimist]

And Tim voted for Obama. So what? What’s done is done.

[The Angry Optimist]

BC WAS NEVER COOL. How many times must is be said? Whenever we ran off BC stuff, it was almost always used and/or co-opted by Republicans anyway.

[Abe Lincoln\'s Mom]

TAO, I think you’re misunderstanding the purpose of the organization. The guy running the show might be the target for Bureaucrash, but not the leadership. I would imagine a similar outcry if Bill Frist or someone similar took over the Cato Institute.

[The Angry Optimist]

ALM – if it’s not supposed to be a coherent organization, why does it matter who is “at the top” anyway? To BCers, membership shouldn’t matter than much.

[Bill]

For an accurate portrayal of Lee Doren’s views, see videos by “HowTheWorldWorks” (Lee Doren), on YouTube.

[Warty]

TAO, that thread reminds me why I don’t join clubs.

[Xaq Fixx]

CEI became away of Mr. Doren because of his you tube videos, one of which had been featured on Fox News, so they were familiar with his views before hiring him to guide BC in a new direction as CiC. This new direction is one that myself, and many other now-former crashers are uncomfortable with, so we left and started something new. The new project will be welcome to anyone wanting to advance liberty, whether or not they renounce their citizenship, or live outside of the us.
Mr. Doren was uncomfortable with some of the memes BC had been spreading for years, so one of his first acts as CiC was remove the link to the list and descriptions of what the memes were and meant. As Ondigo pointed out, the memes are a major part of BC. This was a quick and decisive attack on the brand, and things went downhill from there.

[Kevin Dean]

There are already enough watered-down organizations screaming “Libertarian!” and advocating aggression. Bureaucrash was once one of the most principled network of activists and having someone appointed as figurehead of the organization that rejects the core concepts of libertarianism is deeply saddening.

That’s the contention. I’m not angry, I’m sad.

Luckily, the “go get it done” attitude that was core to Bureaucrash has created a new network and that’s a good thing. 🙂

[blaupanzer]

Sour grapes from the author. They didn’t pick him, so he’ll give them back their ball and leave.

[gyakusetsu]

@blaupanzer

Not at all. I’ve watched this thing unfold and its not about that. The author (and others) would have been comfortable with a number of other CiCs, but this choice was indicative of an attempt to Republicanize Bureaucrash.

[Marc]

Tell me, in your experience, have you ever witnessed a radical libertarian become a moderate Republican?

Dana Rohrabacher doesn’t count? I mean, I didn’t “witness” it, but still…?

[The Angry Optimist]

Just a lot of “I’m canceling my subscription” talk. BC was absolutely stuck on NAP as the end-all, be-all of philosophical and political debate, and that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee at the UDF.

[The Angry Optimist]

Marc – you’re right. There’s one.

Now, take a poll right here on these boards and ask “How many of you were Republicans before you were libertarians” and see what you get.

you can count me as one.

[Marc]

Marc – you’re right. There’s one.

I’m not disagreeing with you–I just wanted to score a point for coming up with a clever counterexample. 🙂

[creech]

Rohrabacher only became a libertarian-conservative Republican. Though who knows where he would have ended up without the influence of his staffers.

[gyakusetsu]

I also want to commend the two prior CiCs and Xaq Fixx for encouraging people to lay off on Lee in particular, and for helping to remind people that the choice of CiC indicates something about the intended direction of the parent organization. These three guys have been there in the thick of it, and I believe them on that matter.

BC is a voluntary membership organization, so those who don’t like it’s direction can leave. Many have.

[copperhead]

I’m far more excited about the prospects for a new activist-driven community than I am disappointed in the abandonment of a community that is controlled by a pay-to-play think tank.

[R C Dean]

Now, take a poll right here on these boards and ask “How many of you were Republicans before you were libertarians” and see what you get.

I went straight from being a sort of unexamined squish who went to Bill Clinton election parties in 1992 to being a hardcore libertarian by, I dunno, the middle to end of 1993.

I’ve never read a word of Ayn Rand, either, so I’m kind of an outlier, I suppose. If any writer laid the groundwork for me being a libertarian, it was probably Robert Anton Wilson.

[Cord Blomquist]

As a former CEI employee, this debate makes me wonder what people consider to be “conservative.” CEI, as a matter of policy, avoids social issues like the drug war, gay marriage, or the role of religion in public life, so there’s no opportunity for it to be labeled conservative there. On foreign policy matters, CEI only speaks about trade. On that issue CEI is decidedly pro-freedom.

What CEI does talk about is regulation–on that topic the record is clear. CEI has opposed expanding the regulatory state, cataloged the growing toll of regulation on the economy, pointed out the most egregious regulations on the books and has worked to repeal them. Where’s the “conservative” in all of this?

It seems to be that anarchists are mad that CEI–a group whose central mission is to be involved in politics in order to stop the expansion of the political realm–is, well, involved in politics. Perhaps in the minds of some folks that a makes a group “conservative” or even “statist” but to me it just makes good sense.

We need for CEIs in the world, not more libertarians giving each other political purity tests.

[Steven Horwitz]

Cord,

CEI does great work at what it does. Bureaucrash was something else and what people are mad at is that a Romney-supporting Republican is in charge of one of the most radical libertarian sites out there and he seems utterly tone deaf to the fact that his membership is somewhere very different than he is. HE is clearly a conservative, and CEI appointed him, hence the anger at CEI.

CEI isn’t conservative per se. They do great work from a libertarian perspective. But they put one in charge of BC.

[gyakusetsu]

Cord, isn’t the argument from authority demonstrated to be poor, when part of the case here is that two other former CEI employees have left Bureaucrash over this issue?

Again, this is not a minarchist/anarchist divide. There are minarchists, anarchists, christarchists, autarkists, and probably many other “archists” against these changes.

I grant that your description certainly does not sound conservative. However, the data of the situation does not meet up with that description of CEI, either.

We are talking about a situation where “conservative/libertarian” was used as if they are the same, where Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh are touted as good reads for BCers, where videos satirize the Left with much much more strength and frequency than the Right, and where a foreign policy of intervention is touted. There is a clear conservative slant.

Maybe CEI doesn’t have a conservative slant itself, but it seems clear that they were trying to court conservatives on Bureaucrash.

[David]

Oh yeah, I’d almost forgotten about the whole Mitt Romney thing. I would not try to apply the “libertarian” label to anyone who thought Mitt Romney was a better candidate than Ron Paul. Romney supported TARP of all things and he favors all sorts of regulation. See here: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/romney-breaks-with-gop-on-the-issue-of-deregulation-2009-04-01.html

“Someone shouldn’t be able to just call themselves a doctor without going to medical school,” Romney said.

Romney added that regulations on some parts of the financial sector are “overly burdensome” while others are “nonexistent.”

Romney, who was a successful businessman before running the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and winning election as the Bay State governor, said Congress was right to pass the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) last fall

ROMNEY???

[reACTIONary]

RE: CEI, as a matter of policy, avoids social issues like the drug war, gay marriage, or the role of religion in public life…

No one is willing to “pay to play” on those issues.