April 22, 2004

Snipe hunts are a rare fond memory of my high school days. They were a common means by which a guy got a girl away from the rest of the crowd at band camp. Most likely the fun of this was equally divided between sneaking a few kisses and hoping to find another couple similarly engaged. It wasn't until years later that I learned what a snipe is, and the various definitions of a snipe hunt.

At the risk of being labeled as one of the libertarian purists whom I generally find close-minded and frustrating, I found myself reminded of the "sniper" connection to snipe hunts while reading a recent piece criticizing libertarian organizations that choose to obtain 501(c)(3), or nonprofit organization, tax status. The argument went that such groups aren't "walking their talk" because they take advantage of the state while they're supposedly working to minimize or eradicate it and its systems. The insinuation was made that such groups' leaders are hypocrites.

Oh, my. So much for tolerance -- or freedom of choice. I suppose the Institute for Justice should close up shop, because, as a libertarian organization, they shouldn't be working within the corrupt justice system. Bye-bye Ludwig von Mises Institute, Cato Institute, and the smaller but influential Heartland Institute and Mackinac Center. All you libertarian moles working in the fedgov beast, come clean and hang it up -- you aren't pure enough to carry the banner of freedom. And of course, my organization, Free-Market.Net and its parent organization, ISIL, ought to cease their work of networking the freedom movement, and educating individuals about the importance of freedom worldwide.

Yes, that's correct; I'm an anarchist and I work for an organization that is apparently, by some individuals' standards, in league with the devil itself. As such, I've encountered views like this before, and while I understand it at least in part, it still surprises me that some individuals can get so exercised over what is ultimately nothing more than a different choice of tactics.

Let me be clear: I despise the state for all its intrusions into private lives and peaceable commerce. Taxes are simply organized theft. The world I wish to live in would have no state -- no mechanism of coercive force wielded by some over others. Absent that, however, individuals and organizations that work to educate and advocate for freedom have a wide variety of tactics available to them. What works for me will not work for some others. Tactics that worked for me at an earlier time in my life don't work for me now. Given that, how can I -- or any individual -- claim to know better how some other entity should act?

While lamenting the fact that freedom-oriented organizations play along with the tax sham, such individuals conveniently overlook an economic truth: more individuals -- including libertarians -- are willing to make charitable contributions when they're able to claim them as a tax deduction. My guess is that they make that choice not because they like being part of the system; they do it because it minimizes the amount stolen from them. Groups similarly make the decision to become a government-recognized nonprofit organizations not because they suddenly love the state, but to leverage the funds they raise. For small organizations, the decision to become a 501(c)(3) is a tough one, as it involves a lot more bureaucracy and a lot less privacy. Once the benefits are judged to outweigh the costs, it becomes a rational choice to take that unpleasant step.

That seems to have been the scenario facing the Free State Project. I'm not a member and have no inside information as to what guided the board's decision making or the process. And in all honesty, I just plain don't care if they become a 501(c)(3) or not, because it doesn't affect my life. It appears to me that it was a purely tactical decision, one that I understand, even as I dislike the necessity of taking such a step.

Libertarian purity is an impossibility for an activist in our society, because the state has insinuated its poisonous tentacles everywhere. Should we give up automobiles, public transit, modern plumbing, clothing, and so on simply because the state has regulated, subsidized, and otherwise tainted virtually every interaction? If freedom-lovers want a true purity test, that is the inevitable result. And it's a silly one. So can we all, please, forget about purity and hypocrisy in judging others' tactical decisions and get back to the heavy lifting of advancing liberty?

There is no one size fits all in freedom, just as elsewhere. A rational choice for one person, or one organization, becomes a rationalizing agent when applied to other individuals or organizations operating under different conditions. The liberty movement has enough snipers surrounding us; we certainly don't need snipers amongst us, adding divisiveness where plenty already exists.

Sunni Maravillosa is the editor for Free Market Net

Archives

Do It Your
Way

I'm Only Interested in Freedom

Law and Liberty

Git Yer Hands Out of my Pockets!