Robert LeFevre: Truth-Seeker

(Holy Moly, it's been almost a month since I've written a post for this blog. I've been busy with various other projects and I've also been traveling. My husband and I went to New Hampshire, partly to attend the Porcfest Freedom Festival. We really didn't do the Porcfest thing right though, we stayed at Rogers Campground Motel for one night and though we did get to attend a few activities, we did not really "feel" the experience. The setup is more tailored to campers. Also the weather was horrible during the time we were there. I was glad to meet a few people I had only interacted with online, so that was cool. Anyway I'm back and will be posting more often.)

In Issue 20, dated July 1986, we learn that Robert LeFevre died in May. I've written about him several times already as I've moved through the issues because had a big influence on the libertarian movement. (Here's one I wrote last September.)

Interestingly, LeFevre died while on a return trip home after attending Carl's wedding to his wife Julie.

Carl considered him one of his closest friends and LeFevre even asked Carl to write his biography. He gave Carl a 2000 page manuscript which Carl pared down. LeFevre was able to comment on the first 3 drafts of the project before he passed away. Carl did end up publishing the biography which is titled Truth Is Not A Halfway Place: The Story of a Freedom Philosopher.

I found a review of the book on FEE website. It's not particularly flattering but it is interesting and the reviewer also knew LeFevre personally, though mostly as a student of his from what I can gather. One interesting tidbit I discovered when reading this review was that LeFevre ran for Congress and lost in the Republican Primary to Richard Nixon! What might be different today had he beaten Nixon in that race?

Carl shares highlights of LeFevre's life in this issue and both the review mentioned above and Carl's article mention LeFevre's deep involvement in a religious movement known as "I AM" which is described in both writings as a cult. I found this news somewhat disturbing and yet I know that it is often the total result of all of our life experiences that make us who we are in the end. Carl notes that there was a good message from this group: the understanding that each individual controls himself.

In his article, Carl also shares two paragraphs that he read at a memorial service, which includes the following:

"Bob was a truth-seeker, one of those rare people one meets, oerhaps a few in a lifetime. Part of his greatness was his ability to stand alone intellectually; another was his consistency. He insisted on thinking ideas through to their conclusions. If there was a choice between being popular and holding to the truth, he always chose the truth. He knew that truth is not a half-way place."

July 14, 2011 update: I received this additional information from a reader:
"Dear Debbie,

Perhaps you were not aware that Bob also published an autobiography of his life. I have a copy. It is much more extensive and detailed than Carl's version, and for that reason I found it more interesting. It is called "A Way To Be Free" and consists of two volumes. He also published a summary of his philosophy called "The Fundamentals of Liberty" and left behind a set of video tapes of his last presentation of the lectures he delivered at the Freedom School in Colorado. Bob had worked for a traveling company of actors during his youth and had obtained training as an actor, and I think this helped make him a good speaker. He also was involved with real estate in San Francisco for a time. He had quite a colorful life.

Lewis S. Coleman"

Playing The Political Expansionist Game

In Issue 7, Robert Lefevre has an article titled, "Cutting Government Growth." In this piece Mr. Lefevre discusses participation in the political process and how it helps government grow. In particular, he points out that elections cannot happen without thousands of people working as unpaid volunteers. (They might do it for some hoped-for benefits but they are not getting paid.)

He writes:

"Government consists of two types of workers: those who are paid for what they do; those who volunteer their services free of charge. Both groups work for the state. Every individual who begins working within the political system in an effort to accomplish anything enlarges the system by his own presence. When a group is organized and begins to seek reduction as a concentrated unit of pressure, a significant growth of the numbers working for government occurs in the process. This is always true even when the purpose of the activists is reduction in size and scope. The state invariably arranges its structure in such a way that its magnitude depends on the numbers of persons involved, rather than on the political direction taken."

Lefevre tells us that the first mistake made by anyone who finally gets fed up and wants to decrease government is to become a political activist. Going door-to-door, endorsing candidates, registering voters, petitioning, picketing and protesting for a cause that requires government action, etc. are all ways political activists end up working for the government. Even when the goal is less government. The Tea Party movement is the latest example.

Lefevre has a fine way of hammering down the point:

"Those entirely sincere individuals who labor endlessly for the reduction of governmental power are, without intending it, playing the political expansionist game."

Talk about unintended consequences!

Lefevre also discusses voting groups and vote percentages as they relate to legitimacy. In regards to voting categories, I had never really thought of adding to the voter base from the government’s side as a whole. But I realize now that the addition of new voters, (removing land ownership requirements, black males, women, lowering voting age to 18) merely strengthened the legitimacy of the system at large because just the fact that you CAN vote adds legitimacy.

This isn’t good enough though because we know there’s an uncomfortable sensitivity to voter participation totals. Everyone seems to understand that there’s a line where the vote just wouldn’t be accepted as legitimate. We may not know exactly where that line is, but it’s there nonetheless.

As a result we now have groups whose only purpose is to get people to vote. They don’t care who you vote for, just that you vote. Many individuals blindly repeat this message too. People are even rewarded for acting on their civic duty by getting a sticker to put on their shirt that says “I voted.”

(A sticker for good behavior. I guess our education system does a good job of training for this to be effective, doesn’t it?)

Lefevre gives us an example of how voter turnout can affect government action. In 1963, a special election was held in Colorado Springs and the weather affected the turnout which led to controversy (you can read the details yourself). In the end, Lefevre says the politicians were extremely careful about any action, so they mostly just "sat on their hands" because the case was effectively made that they did not have the sanction of the people.

Lefevre admits this is one small example but the main point is that politicians are extremely sensitive about legitimacy so not voting is a good idea even strategically. Who knows if others will follow but, on an individual level at least, as a non-voter I know I’m one person who is no longer playing the expansionist game.

He seems to imply that we will eventually hit that sweet spot where legitimacy is in question but I wonder if this is the case. Non-voters are the majority already and it appears to me that the government promoters have put the spin on their side by saying those people are willing to accept the results of the voters.

They have no evidence of this of course, it’s just their premise. But if they keep repeating it, people will just assume it to be true. Therefore, perhaps there needs to be a concerted effort to change the message.

A truthful message would be one that says we cannot know where those individuals stand. This could create unease about what the large group of non-voters, the real majority, actually think.

Would that do anything to persuade more people to not vote thereby hitting that sweet spot, wherever it may be, which makes the politicians “sit on their hands?"

Robert Lefevre’s Lesson

Issue 3 begins a new series called Roots of the Movement, which is intended to highlight the more recent history of libertarian events and activism. This first one is called "How to Become a Teacher" by Robert Lefevre. In this article Mr. Lefevre details the process he went through to start the Rampart Freedom School.

If you read this article, you will learn a lot about the formation of this school, as well as about Lefevre himself, even some of his experiences and conclusions of his time spent in the military. (He enlisted in 1942.) This is interesting to learn since I think he’s well-known now as a pacifist.

One point he makes in this article is that his life circumstances gave him the opportunity to have time to read and study. I was fortunate to have time to do this as well, but so many others are too busy trying to make ends meet. Ironically most people don’t have time to even learn enough to understand how inflation is a tax.

Mr. Lefevre was very impressed with the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE). He made more than one visit to their location in New York.

(This reminds me; sometimes an organization’s acronym can sometimes just be too easy to use. I was at a meeting of local libertarian-minded people recently and mentioned FEE and when I tried to remember what the acronym stood for, I went completely blank. I knew the E’s were Economic and Education. I know, it sounds stupid now. Of course it’s Foundation, but I just kept drawing a blank. The only f-word I could think of was freedom. Well until I got frustrated enough, then I though of another one. I don’t think I said it out loud though.)

Anyway, Lefevre thought that FEE’s influence was just too small and he wanted others to learn what he was learning. He really wanted FEE to start a school, but it didn’t quite turn out that way. To find out the lessons Lefevre learned as he became involved in setting up the school, read his article.

Too bad I didn’t attend this school during my college years. I probably would have learned about Lysander Spooner much, much earlier than I did.

(Photo courtesy of Mises Institute by way of Wikimedia Commons)

An Intellectual Foundation for Liberty

Carl writes an article in Issue 14 about The Freedom School, an educational project started by Robert Lefevre. This article is a nice history of the struggles and successes Lefevre experienced during the 10 years the school was in existence in Colorado. Carl decided to write about the school because he thought it was time for a Freedom School II:

Now why does the author of this article believe that, 15 years after the demise of the Freedom School, it is time for Freedom School II? The answer to that question is largely premised on the view that education is the most moral and effective way to promote libertarian ideas. Politically speaking the last decade has been disastrous for libertarians because people were led to believe that electoral politics could change things around. No intellectual foundation was ever laid. Had the money spent on trying to win elections been spent on a Freedom School, the educational efforts would have resulted in many thousands of people becoming well informed and self-disciplined individualists. The political process will never accomplish this: nor will violent revolutionary attempts to alter the structure of government or society succeed, because attitudes and ideas have to be changed first. When the Freedom School was operating it contributed enormously to the comprehension that thousands of people had for the meaning, significance and implications of human liberty. "More persons were taught personal self-discipline, self-control, personal responsibility, and independence than at any other time in this century."

Well, we’re 10 years into a new century now and guess what? There is a Freedom School II. An online version anyway.

A fellow who goes by the name of Anthony Freeman is continuing Lefevre’s idea and offering a way to study online. (Anthony also has another site where you can learn more about his beliefs.)

In this computer age, there are many sites to visit for those who want to learn about the ideas of liberty, most notably mises.org which has loads of Lefevre-specific resources. But this Freedom School site, established in January, 2010 specifically claims a desire to continue Lefevre’s work with The Freedom School.

This Freedom School offers an organized curriculum, complete with study assignments, which is nice for those who want structure. No specified tuition is required, only donations, which means this learning project accessible to almost anyone who may be interested.

I hope people take advantage of this, because as Carl’s says in the article:

The existence and creation of an all-voluntary society depends on there being sufficient numbers of informed, thinking people who accept personal responsibility for their own existence and who refuse to resort to violence in any form. The person who convinces himself that voluntaryism is humane, moral and practical remains convinced forever. As LeFevre has written, "From this procedure there can be no backlash. More and more persons, self-motivated and self-controlled, simply stop engaging in the existing social devises which impose on others. They break their ties with the existing political structures; not by violence, not by trying to obtain majorities or using force, but by understanding and then thinking differently about the whole area of human relationship."

The Button-Pushing Dilemma

Issue 17 has two items on the topic of “button-pushing.” The discussion generally revolves around what you would do if given a chance to remove the state by pushing a button.

Carl’s article “Button Pushing or Abdication” discusses what Leonard Read, Robert Lefevre and Ludwig Von Mises said they would do. As you read the article you can see that Carl’s intent in bringing up the situation is to show that, from a Voluntaryist perspective, pushing the button makes little sense because you can’t force people to be free.

Simply pushing a button changes no one’s mind and is in essence trying only to force people to be free. So it’s contradictory to the Voluntaryist philosophy.

This issue also contains a response from Samuel Edward Konkin III (also known as SEK3), who sets up and imagines more parameters. In particular, he focuses on how the situation came to be in the first place and thereby gives an agorist perspective to the dilemma.

I’m not too big on these types of imaginary intellectual dilemmas and it’s mostly because of what Konkin points out, even if the situation could ever happen, there are far too many possibilities in how the situation comes to be in the first place.

So I find it hard to stay focused on the deeper philosophical issues involved and end up just thinking about it in a completely different way.

If I was in a situation to push a button, I might have to do it just because I’d be curious to see what happens if I pushed it. I think I’d be like Dennis the Menace, in the 1993 movie, I’d just have to push the button, because well, it’s there.

What would you do?

Consistently Craving Consistency

What do you get when you mix a strong adherence to principle and worldly practicality? You get Mr. R. C. Hoiles.

We were first introduced to Mr. Hoiles in Issue 17 and I commented on a few ways I personally connected to this man, one being that I write a column for a local newspaper.

Now, after reading the feature article in Issue 18, “To Thine Own Self Be True – The Story of Raymond Cyrus Hoiles and his Freedom Newspapers,” I found another theme that makes me feel a connection to him: a strong desire for consistency.

We can see Hoiles' desire for consistency in his positions throughout this piece authored by Carl. Hoiles was always willing to stand by his principles, one example being that his newspapers spoke out against internment of Japanese Americans during World War 2, quite an unpopular opinion at the time.

Certainly this adherence to principle has the strong potential to annoy advertisers on occasion and there are a few examples of this in the article. But Hoiles apparently didn’t care and held fast to his principles even when it cost him money. And yet, his Freedom Newspaper Chain succeeded and grew.

Carl goes into more detail about Hoiles’ belief that he was handicapped by attending government schools. Hoiles realized he was never taught to think with consistency about basic principles:

“Of course, I never found any textbook or any teacher that believed taxation was a violation of justice and of moral law, as set forth in the Commandments "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet." In other words, the government schools I attended made no attempt to be consistent and teach me to recognize contradictions.”

It appears that Hoiles spent the rest of his life working towards consistency and clarity in his thinking.

He believed that the purpose of the editorial page of his newspapers was to get people to think and all those on the editorial staff (which included Robert Lefevre) were constantly working and thinking about the freedom philosophy and how those principles defined the editorial stance of the papers.

I have always been drawn to consistency in thought. One thing that bothers me most is hypocrisy and I’m always bothered when I see it in myself most of all. My family tells me that sometimes I just think too much and analyze things too much when they hear me express concern about my own inconsistencies or about the inconsistencies in the world at large and maybe I do.

I wonder if R. C. Hoiles heard that a time or two in his life as well. If so, I am guessing he’d respond just as I do: I just can’t help it. I crave consistency.

Freedom for All is the Product of Self-Control

In the article in Issue 17 titled, “The Decision is Always Yours – Freedom as Self-Control,” Carl Watner discusses various aspects of self-control.

One point made in this article is that the government can’t force you to do anything; you are ultimately the only one who can control yourself.

This can be hard to understand at first. Many people hear this and think, “That’s not right! The government (or anyone else who uses violence or threats of violence) is forcing me to do x. I don’t want to do x, they are forcing me.”

But this is not true. You always have choices. It’s just that those who threaten violence against you can limit your choices. Severely. But only you can act on those choices and you make your choice by weighing the consequences. Many of us don’t want to go to jail or get killed of course and we accept another choice.

So in the end, if you do what the people with guns tell you to do you are still the one acting, the one making the choice, and yes, the one voluntarily consenting.

Carl discusses many implications to this insight but for me, this is important because of the problems that come when limiting choices. Limiting choices prevents people from developing the ability to make decisions and take responsibility for their actions.

And as mentioned in the article, limiting choices also limits the power of human creative energy. Energy that is needed to move society forward, to solve problems in a respectful and peaceful manner.

Another aspect of realizing you have control over your actions is that you begin to look inward and evaluate why you made certain choices and whether those choices added value to your life or not. You end up creating your own methods of self-government, self-discipline, and self-evaluation.

You focus on yourself rather than on others because it’s all about self-control, not ‘others-control.’ This is why self-control can lead to freedom for everyone.

Here is a nice ends-means comment at the end of this piece that I’ll close with here:

“…It is immoral in itself for the moral person to impose morality upon others. The moral person does not resort to force, does not compel others to accept his or her morality. The means would be inconsistent with the ends of morality. If the moral person gives due consideration to the means (the inculcation of character and self-control), the end (a group of people who are moral and respect property rights) will take care of itself. Thus another proof of "freedom is self-control." "One does not have to labor to compel others to accept freedom. One has, rather, to control himself, so that he does not interfere with the freedom of others. Freedom for all is the product of self-control. This means that we will be free when we stop preventing the freedom of others." (Bob LeFevre, G.7., September 13, 1959.)”