The Libertarian Pledge

At the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the only people who could vote were property-owning males. Those who did not own property were not allowed to vote on how to dispose of the property of others.

Although church attendance had often been mandatory, and was nearly universal, only those who demonstrated a proficiency in the church creed, usually a variation of the Westminster Standards, were voting members of the church.

A good argument can be made that abolishing the requirement for voters to own property gradually led to a more socialistic America. The parallel argument is that allowing anybody to obtain voting church membership led to clergymen who did not really believe the Bible or the fundamental tenets of Christianity, and were political liberals as well as theological liberals. H. L. Mencken saw the parallel.

Coming from California just a few years ago, I only recently learned that in 1985 the Missouri Libertarian Party removed the "oath" that is required for membership in the National Libertarian Party. The "oath" in question is specified in the National LP bylaws, section 7: "Members of the Party shall be those persons who have certified in writing that they oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."

My support of the "oath" is found here. I'm convinced that without the "oath," the Libertarian Party will eventually become indistinguishable from the Republicrat/Demoblican two-party monopoly.

The marketing gurus are telling us about the importance of "branding" and of protecting the brand. In a chapter called "Counterfeit Libertarianism," Michael Cloud (Secrets of Libertarian Persuasion) writes:

"Libertarianism" is attracting the fakers, forgers and counterfeiters.
Why? Quality. Value. Performance. Libertarianism is the gold standard of political philosophies.
When someone is tolerant about something, he tries to cash in by calling his tolerance "libertarian."
When a person opposes a tax increase on his business -- while supporting other tax increases that don't gore his ox -- he may support his position by saying, "On this tax issue, I am a libertarian."
Sure. And when I eat a salad I'm a vegetarian.
How do we protect the value of "libertarianism?"

Cloud then gives 5 suggestions, which in my opinion don't go far enough. Each are susceptible to unscrupulous brand-counterfeiters, like Republicans who say they voted for "smaller government" when all they voted for was a slight cut in the increase of the size of government. But I agree with his final exhortation:

We must publicly and privately show people the difference between true libertarianism and counterfeit libertarianism. We must teach them how to tell the difference between genuine libertarianism and fake libertarianism.
We must expose the counterfeits -- and get them out of circulation.

So what distinguishes "genuine" libertarianism and "fake" libertarianism? There's only one thing: a voting record that consistently opposes the initiation of force. Thoughtful observers do not have a problem discerning who is "a true libertarian." In a world flooded with legislative proposals to initiate force against others, the true libertarian earns the brand "Dr. No."