Stumbling and Bumbling Toward Truth? By Wilton D. Alston
(2011-01-27 at 19:46:59 )

Stumbling and Bumbling Toward Truth? by Wilton D. Alston

Musing About How I Found Libertarianism by Wilton D. Alston

This essay originally appeared in the book, Why Liberty, compiled by
Marc Guttman.

I really should have given this essay a better name. After all, it is
about my journey toward libertarianism and therefore (hopefully) truth.

It would have made sense to use something like "my journey toward the
light" or something equally regal. Here is the thing though. My journey
toward libertarianism has been anything but smooth or regal. As a black
person it seems to me that even though we have embraced any number of
political-philosophical approaches, libertarianism is among the rarer.

As such, my f inding and embracing libertarian theory involves equal
measures of luck and courage. Perhaps that is why I was asked to
contribute this story! Either way, I feel honored and happy to do so. It
is my f irm belief that I am onto something that represents the best of
logic, reason, and truth. However, I did not always think so.

Growing up in a small town in North Carolina, named Hallsboro, I had no
contact with any people who called themselves "libertarians." As far
back as I can remember, my folks and all my relatives voted Democratic,
at least as far as I could tell. In fact, I do not even remember when I
f irst heard the term, "third-party candidate" but it was probably in
college. In the portion of the South where I grew up, it seemed pretty
clear which party was out to help you and which party was out to get
you, particularly if you were a black person. Still though, certain
things about my childhood - the fact that my paternal grandfather was a
share cropper; the fact that my maternal grandfather owned a lot of land;
and the fact that my father always seemed to be working - all had an
eff ect on me. In retrospect, it was a combination of these eff ects
that made me open to libertarianism even before I knew what it was.

Two instances in particular stand out in my mind as providing seeds of
libertarianism that did not germinate until much later in life. The
first such instance involved a phone survey that I answered while my
parents were out. After all the normal demographic questions, the lady
on the phone began to query me about my parents jobs and lifestyle. At
some point she asked, "And what does your dad do for work?" At that
exact moment my father was off on a job laying brick at some location.
In fact, during almost any down time he could usually be found out doing
something that would result in additional income for the family. To this
very day he has at least two hustles that he uses to generate income. He
was the original example of someone having multiple income streams in
my eyes. So I said to her, "he is a bricklayer."

Later, my folks and I were eating dinner and I recalled the story for
them. When I got to the part about my dad being a bricklayer, my folks
both laughed and corrected me. My dad, and my mom, were schoolteachers
and had been so for years. I knew that, but somehow it escaped in that
moment on the phone. My dads practice - always looking for an additional
way to make money - rubbed off on me. To this day, I am always looking
for a way to generate additional income. In fact, that point of view led
me to experiences I will recount later - experiences that further forged
my libertarian leanings.

A second instance of lessons I learned at home came during the school
year. Our county, like many counties in that part of the South, off ered
a free lunch program at school. All one had to do was f ill out a simple
form and receive the free lunches. Most of the kids I knew got free
lunch. I did not. In fact, when I brought the form home for my parents
my dad went off on a tirade.

He did not yell at me, but his words have stuck in my mind for 30+ years
anyway. He said something to the eff ect that he would rot in his grave
before he would f ill out a form to receive something he simply did not
deserve. He was appalled at the number of people he knew to be
f inancially able to aff ord lunch who were receiving free lunch instead.
In my entire childhood and well into adolescence I can safely say that I
never saw my father change his point of view on this seminal issue. If
you can aff ord it yourself, lying to the state to get it for free is
just lazy, shiftless, unethical, and borders on immoral.

Looking back on these two scenarios, I can see now how these working
examples of the power and in fact the glory of taking care of oneself
fueled me throughout life. That fuel remains plentiful in me to this
very day, and it came from my parents. But despite the groundwork laid
by those early experiences, I came out of engineering school at Duke
University, in Durham, North Carolina, with a strong liberal bent. I was
not exactly a socialist, but I could see how socialism: a) might work;
and b) seemed fair.

In fact, now that I think about it, I remember a statement that my high
school social studies teacher made in class one day. She said,
"Socialism makes a lot of sense, on paper." Of course, I believed her!

Clearly, or so I thought, the powers-that-be had unfairly secured much of
their wealth at the expense of the poor. Just as clearly, drastic
measures were warranted. (Maybe I had forgotten my fathers words.
Luckily, they would return to me later.) Looking back, I would now
assume that most recipients of a liberal education - particularly black
folk - have been taught to feel the same way. Several events during my
first year working for the Eastman Kodak Company conspired to shake the
moorings of that belief system.

Early Indications

One such event occurred when I got that very f irst paycheck back in 1981.
As a student, I had never really paid a lot of income taxes and as such,
had rarely focused on those "other" boxes on most paychecks. When I got
my f irst "real" paycheck that all changed. I literally yelled something
along the lines of "what the heck?" and asked each of my off ice mates if
something was wrong with my check. Breaking all manner of unwritten
workplace customs, I actually showed my paycheck to each of them as I
beseeched them for help and understanding. I wondered aloud what this
"FICA" crap was and how anyone could just stand by and let that much of
their hard-earned money be taken away, for whatever reason.

As I recall, they all had a good laugh at my expense. Being older, they
were all too aware of the ubiquity of Social Security, which is what
those "FICA" contributions supported. They dismissed my excitement for
naïveté and life continued, as one would expect. I remained upset (and
frankly, that has not changed much in all the years since) but I
eventually realized that nothing could be done.

Later that year, or maybe the next one, I got into a heated discussion
with another of my work mates, another black man, who in addition to
being a technician in our design group, was also a local business owner.
He and his wife owned a beauty shop in Rochesters inner city. (By the
way, this "inner city" was nothing like the horrible place that the
mainstream media seems to know all about.) He also owned a f ew
investment properties, as I recall. He was quite a character, and would
become, in time, a mentor-of-sorts for me.

As I recall, we were discussing the plight of black folk one day at
lunch. (For the uninformed, this is a topic that comes up many times per
day whenever "upwardly-mobile" black people gather in groups larger than
one.) As a loyal pseudo-socialist liberal, I had a strong view of the
responsibility of the state with regard to the welfare of black folk. As
an aside, although I saw the "logic" of socialism, I subscribed to
Reason magazine beginning almost immediately after graduating from
college. There was a conflict taking place in my mind and I am not sure
I even knew it.

Anyway, as I recall, our conversation involved some pounding on the
table (long a staple of the angry black man) and some raised voices. I
remember him smiling as I regaled him with all the reasons why black
folk simply could not make it without help. Seriously, anyone with half
a brain and any pride accepted the fact that we had been taken advantage
of! Somebody had to pay! At some point in my rant, he uttered some words
that I have not forgotten to this very day - and I do not think I will
ever forget them. He said, "I do not want nobodys help. Just get out of
my way and I can do it myself!"

Those words sounded simple-minded then. Hell, they sound simple-minded
now. As I fancy myself a scientist, the elegant simplicity of truth as
exemplified by Occams razor - appeals to me. That statement held one of
those simple truths. Ironically, it was not until years later that it
dawned on me that a similar sentiment, and in fact a similar statement
would very likely have been made by either or both of my maternal (land-
owning) grandfather and my father. All that working my dad did was
because he was determined to make damned certain he controlled his
destiny, versus being at the whim of a person for whom he simply tended
land he did not own, which his father, my paternal grandfather had done
for his entire life. Lessons well earned have a tendency to keep coming
back like that I guess.

Little did I have any clue - even the faintest inkling - that I would
one day be saying much the same thing to anyone who would listen, even
going so far as to submit my modest musings to websites such as
LewRockwell.com specifically so others could read them.

Bogus Beliefs and Hard Lessons

After those early debates with my would-be mentor, and even despite the
shock of seeing all that cash vanish from my paycheck to parts unknown,
life pretty much followed the standard course. I voted religiously,
while lamenting the evilness of the Republicans and believing in the
honest passion of the Democrats. In fact, I had a good-sized list of
other standard beliefs, such as:

- There was a distinct difference between the two major U.S. political
parties. The Democratic Party was the party of tolerance and was lead by
noble champions of the downtrodden wee folk. In sharp contrast, the
Republican Party represented people who inherited their wealth or got it
through nefarious means, plus some odd groups of hyper-religious
intolerant modern-day witch burners.
- The only thing wrong with the government was that self ish and/or
incompetent people were accidentally voted into off ice by people who
basically just needed a little more education so they could become smart
enough to vote as I did.
- The Civil Rights Movement, and most of American history for that
matter, proved conclusively that government intervention was absolutely
essential and would likely remain so for the foreseeable future.
- Drug users only used drugs because of personal character flaws or as a
way to flaunt their inherent scuminess and disrespect for the safety of
others and the sanctity of the family. They deserved long prison
sentences as punishment for being such losers.
- No civilized society needed routine and widespread ownership of guns.
In fact most private guns were owned by unsophisticated hillbillies or
unredeemable criminals, or, Ku Klux Klansmen, who were typically drawn
from one or both of the former groups. I was not interested in arming
any of them.

Rather than further bore the reader with any (certain-to-be) long-winded
explanation of how I came to ditch these bogus beliefs like so much old
fruit, let me take another approach. In most things, the foundation is
what is important. In my case, the foundation of my beliefs centered
about essentially three things, which were:

- 1. The inherent unfairness of capitalism.
- 2. The historical reasons for the position of black folk in American
society.
- 3. The proven ability of the state to provide the necessary changes
and appropriate calibrations to the market for the good of all.

Getting involved in real estate investing did more to completely
eviscerate these flawed foundational beliefs than I could have ever
anticipated. Once that demise took place, it was just a matter of time
before the others followed suit.

Out of the Frying Pan…

When I bought that f irst property I was certain of a few things. One, I
could purchase real property with little to no money down. Two, I could
structure those purchases, even on single-family homes, so that I had
"positive cash flow" almost immediately. Three, given that I was a black
person, my (likely) black tenants would embrace my logic, reason, and
passion. Together we would march off into the sunset of wealth and
independence! This happily-ever-after story would provide an example for
all the greedy white people who had owned inner-city real estate before
I came upon the scene. (I promise you, I am not making this up.)
Actually, I wish I were making it up.

The deduction that, in retrospect, started me on my f inal approach to
libertarianism occurred while I was a rental property manager and
landlord, beginning approximately 5 years after taking that f irst job
mentioned earlier.

During this time I got to see not only how individuals interacted with
free enterprise, but also how the government and the market interacted
with those individuals. Additionally I got to see, f irst-hand, how
government programs ostensibly designed to help the poor actually
created a situation that locked people on welfare for generations.
Capitalism was not unfair - not allowing people a chance to participate
in it was.

Look at is this way. In a genuine free enterprise or market-based
situation, one generally receives feedback directly in response to
actions he takes. This is how the entrepreneur knows what to keep doing
and what to stop doing. In some cases, it even leads to the failure of a
business. In the case of my tenants - people who received a substantial
portion of their income via government agencies, and particularly in
cases where a substantial portion of that income went directly to a
service provider without the tenants action - little or no feedback was
present. The main benef it delivered to my tenants was money, in the form
of rent payments or rent subsidies. These payments could go on for years,
and in fact, even across generations.

By doing this, the Department of Social Services (DSS) removed any
semblance of feedback that a person might receive regarding what will,
in most every case be their largest monthly financial obligation. By
paying these payments without any interaction from the tenant DSS
certainly made things more convenient for everyone. (As a recipient of
these funds, I enjoyed getting those checks directly!) But, they also
precluded the tenant from having to decide, on a monthly basis, how to
budget her money with regard to competing bills, like rent, food,
entertainment, etc. In effect, the tenant could just "blow" the money
they received, because the most important item - their shelter - was
taken care of without any action by them. Is there any doubt what would
eventually happen if this money stopped showing up or if they had to
make a decision themselves?

Lest anyone think this is the result of some inherent failing in the
tenant or poor people in general, a closer examination of ones own life
reveals many of the same hidden-from-view scenarios. For example, if the
water authority where you live suddenly stopped delivering potable water,
what would you do? I am willing to bet that most people would panic,
with no idea what to do next, aside from going down to a local grocery
store to stand in line, that is. Simply put, when something is delivered
without our action or involvement, we come to rely on that delivery,
sometimes despite what would otherwise be prudent. (In the
transportation field in which I work this is known as "detrimental
reliance" and is always a danger in automated safety systems.)

In the case of my tenants, the incentives were all screwed up. What
little feedback that actually was offered came in the form of reduced
benefits if one of these people went out and got a job to supplement
their income. Given those incentives, I could understand why people
stayed on public assistance versus getting a job.

Every so often, the DSS would, via some means I never quite understood,
decide that they needed to "help" a welfare recipient move toward more
personal-responsibility-based financial management. The first step in
this process was always sending the rent money to the tenant, versus the
landlord, and having the tenant pay their bills - including their rent
- out of that money. It never worked.

In cases where the DSS sought to let the tenant pay their own rent -
versus paying it for them - I never saw one tenant make the transition
successfully. Not one. After years of having their rent paid for them,
why would we expect anything different? In their attempts to "help" the
poor, the state actually made everything worse. Regardless of the
historical reasons why these people may have been poor, the state showed
no ability to make things better. The state knew neither what to change
nor how to change it.

In the aftermath of drawing these initial conclusions, I came to a
larger conclusion that still fuels many of my beliefs today - if a
person has never owned their own business, or done something similar,
they have no idea how capitalism is supposed to work. At best, they are
guessing, and it is easy to guess wrong. Giving a man a fish, no matter
how well intentioned, or nutritionally-satisfying, will never teach him
to fish for himself. In fact after sufficient time has passed, he will,
almost without exception, forget that fishing was ever necessary. And
even if he does not forget, his progeny - those who learn by watching
him - have no chance to learn that which they have never seen practiced.

Walking the Walk and Talking the Talk

After all that, where am I now? How would I describe myself and my
specific beliefs about libertarianism?

While I could generally be described as a libertarian, a more
appropriate and more accurate designation would be market anarchist.

This means most importantly that I freely accept that the main problem
with the current system of government is, in fact, that we have one. In
direct correspondence to the old saying, "they lie when the truth would
suffice," our politicians abuse the truth pretty much whenever they open
their mouths to speak. The entire system is based upon one set of folks
milking another set for as much as they can.

Most, if not all, laws that exist are the expression of some bureaucrats
power-laden wet dream or some lobbyists profit-seeking scheme.

Government is fundamentally about force and violent (if needed) coercion.
And do not get me started on the IRS. (They call him Uncle Scam for a
reason, no?) If stealing - forcibly taking someones property and giving
them nothing in exchange - is morally wrong for the individual, then it
cannot be justified just because a bunch of guys who call themselves
"the government" need some cash.

The most basic expression and most fundamental dogma in libertarian
theory is the non-aggression axiom - the initiation of force is never
justified.

I subscribe to pacifism as a dogma and am openly against warfare,
particularly as it is practiced by the imperial empire known as America.
(History has shown time and again that the only reason for a standing
army is for imperialist advancement.) Still, I understand that self-
protection may occasionally be necessary. I might therefore be best
described as a "porcupine pacifist" in that I simultaneously decry
aggression while having no compunction about advocating a citizenry
chock-full of well-armed, well-trained individuals and families. From a
black perspective specifically, history supports this premise. Anyone
who has spent any time analyzing the inner city would have to be
seriously delusional to think that disarming the law-abiding citizenry
increases safety.

The general history of civilization and society supports the private
ownership of guns. I think Cesare Beccaria, a legal theorist from the
1700s said it best, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms - disarm only
those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants." The logic of this is undeniable to me, and I find it
amazing that people believe otherwise.

The mainstream political parties are inherently similar, barely avoiding
being identical; therefore, spending any time debating about them is
time wasted.

My best explanation of this belief occurs in my initial article for
LewRockwell.com, entitled, "Where Have All the Black Libertarians Gone?"
where I state:

"I do not doubt that on many of these "hot-button" issues [gay marriage,
abortion, voting rights, social security, school choice (vouchers),
national defense, welfare, affirmative action, etc.], the two parties
seem different. If one judges by only these issues they might actually
be different to varying degrees. Are the specific issues really that
important in the grand scheme? Maybe. Should we not be just as concerned
with the methodology for addressing them? Definitely. But if the two
parties were substantially different, would we not see, in the aftermath
of each election, noticeable and substantial upheavals in policy, law,
and as a direct result, day-to-day life? And if we do not, were those
ostensive differences really important?"

I continued with:

"Even if the two parties did actually have radically different ideas
about right and wrong - and implemented radically different policies as
a result - one key factor would remain the same. Those policies would be
funded based upon coercion supported by the threat of violence.

Basically, the state, as realized in every western "democracy" available
for study, functions on principals closer to the Mafia than any utopian
republic described by Plato. Simply put, they [the state] force all to
contribute to their treasury, for the creation of products and services
that no one has a choice about accepting, at a cost that always
escalates. Nice racket."

The best means by which to right past wrongs are private, not via
legislation.

One oft-debated area where being black and libertarian might come into
conflict is over the issue of reparations. Few issues are so fundamental
to a belief in personal responsibility and self-determination than that
of a debt owed to ones ancestors. Again, my current thoughts on this
issue are clear from the article I mentioned above. To wit:

"The only method available to the state for securing money [is] - theft.
Frédéric Bastiat, in his pamphlet The Law puts state-sponsored theft,
which he refers to as "plunder" into scientific terms when he says:

"When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it,
without his consent, and without compensation, whether by force or
fraud, to someone who does not own it, then I say that property is
violated and an action of plunder is committed."

"If someone stole something from you, having the state steal from
someone different does not really solve the problem, does it? And if the
state stole - or more accurately, allowed someone else to steal
something from your ancestors does it make sense for them to now steal
something from everyone else and give it to you? Not so much."

Conclusion

So then, I embraced libertarianism not because it sounded interesting
when I studied its theories. In fact, I have not, even to this day, read
many of the books libertarians point to as seminal in their "conversion."
(This is neither an attack on those books nor a suggestion for others.
It is simply a statement of fact. And yes, my study of libertarian
philosophy, including many of those "classics," continues. But let us be
clear. The people from whom I learned had never heard of Murray Rothbard
or Ludwig von Mises.) I embraced libertarianism because it best fit
(by far) the conclusions I had already reached empirically. That should
come as no surprise, since the truths upon which libertarianism rests
were truths before there were any theories or high-sounding descriptions
of them.

Those conclusions prompted me to begin my study of the more theoretical
aspects, which further confirmed my initial thoughts. I can only hope
that others will conduct their own honest investigation. I have little
doubt that their conclusions will be similar. Allow me to end this trip
down memory lane as I ended my first published libertarian article:

"To be completely free, secure, and happy, there are three things that
concern me - life, liberty, and property. The state did not create them.
The state can only take them away. There has been enough of that already.
So unless I want to enjoy the fruits of income redistribution - which
account for a major portion of the states budget, excluding national
defense - there is not much left for the state to do on my behalf."

Indeed. Not much at all - like NOTHING.

December 30, 2010

Wilt Alston lives in Rochester, NY, with his wife and three children.
When he is not training for a marathon or furthering his part-time study
of libertarian philosophy, he works as a principal research scientist in
transportation safety, focusing primarily on the safety of subway and
freight train control systems.

Copyright © 2010 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or
in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.