Note: this is the third in a series of short commentaries highlighting the perils of minarchy, that seemingly necessary governmental evil that even at its most basic and minimal level becomes ever expanding and routinely fails to live up to the lofty ideals of representative government, always to the peril of individual liberty.
I recently made an appearance on The Hapa Supremacy podcast, which consisted of a roundtable style discussion with three other folks, in which we covered a handful of topics including monarchy, the futility of third party politics and the myriad regulations surrounding beer and marijuana. After the podcast, one particular topic creeped back into my consciousness: a discussion surrounding the viability of third party politics and whether or not one should promote/participate or abolish third parties, specifically the Libertarian Party. I’d like to elaborate on that discussion using the proposed Amendment 77, on the ballot in the upcoming Colorado election, as a catalyst.
Should Amendment 77 pass, casino bet limits and restrictions on the types of casino games in certain gaming cities will be removed from the Colorado constitution and voters in three cities (Black Hawk, Central City and Cripple Creek) may approve new casino bet limits and add new casino games in their respective cities. Upon passage, the Colorado Gaming Commission will establish rules for the new games, casinos may offer new casino games and any new bet limits starting May 1, 2021. Further, community colleges may use any additional casino tax revenue to fund student retention and completion programs, student financial aid, classroom instruction and workforce development programs.
Setting aside the absurdity of the last segment of the Amendment regarding the linking of gambling to education taxes for the foreseeable future, let’s dive into the minarchists’ revenge and why supporting third parties is a lost cause. What Amendment 77 does is try to give the illusion of local control, while simply tying the cities to further regulatory control and dictates from unelected bureaucracies. If there is any certainty in politics, it’s that there will only be more control, not less, should any future legislation be proposed regarding this matter. If the intent of the legislation was truly about enabling local control, just end it at that, propose an Amendment that enables cities to control what happens in their specific jurisdiction. It’s easy to see why this type of legislation is appealing because on the surface it seems great, why should someone in rural Yuma county dictate what is happening in a former mountain ghost town turned gambling city? And vice versa for that matter. This seems like a great step forward for the minarchists, allowing local control over many matters and leaving the bigger issues to the state, but if this is such a great idea, why is it necessary to tie it to “education measures.” If one truly believes in “the will of the people,” there need not be any additional clauses to the Amendment.
Now, in turning to the third party lost cause aspect, one of the ideas posited by a guest on the podcast (Theodore from @CrowdFundedGovt) was, in that there are over 10,000 vacancies in local governments across the country, if a third party such as the Libertarian Party could fill those seats and affect change at the lawmaking level, something on the order of real change in a direction toward more liberty could, in theory, occur. I should take a moment and clarify that this is not Theodore’s official position, he was using it as a springboard for a thought experiment for the sake of discussion on the podcast. It’s also worth clarifying that this Amendment was placed on the ballot by citizen initiative, not specifically by legislators. Taking all that in, would having more libertarians in office have any impact on whether or not this Amendment passes? What has the Libertarian Party done in the last forty some years to convey to the masses why this type of legislation is the antithesis of freedom and merely extends and embeds government bureaucracy for the foreseeable future? Would more libertarians be able to convince the people that this type of legislation, although it sounds like local control, is in fact the opposite of local control? Do the people actually want freedom? If the people can’t see beyond the surface level analysis of the most basic piece of legislation, would having more representation from the Libertarian Party in any local government across the United States have any impact on one’s day to day life? No matter which party one may join to get “into the system,” to affect change, the legislation(s) that one could support are ultimately half measures, never moving the needle toward freedom and liberty, but always to more control by others. If you always have to accept half-measures, third party politics is a lost cause. Perhaps this apathy is the true minarchists’ revenge, we resign ourselves to throwing our hands up in the air and emphatically proclaim, who cares? And government rolls on.
