Beyond Ballots or Bullets Welcome
My name is Rob Latham. I’m the current chairman of the Libertarian Party of Utah, president of the Salt Lake City Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, and an adjunct instructor of U.S. Government and Politics at the Salt Lake Community College.
As a methodological individualist, I think that everyone can truly only speak for oneself, even when others may take our comments as representative of the members of some group.
So, on my behalf, welcome to Utah — not the State of Utah — but the geographical area I was born and raised in commonly known as “Utah.” Welcome also to this workshop, and thank you for bringing your minds with you to continue the development of freedom strategies.
I say “continue” because the development of freedom strategies that don’t use aggression is not new.
For example, I remember taking a course in public relations while attending the University of Southern California, and later working in the public affairs department of a Fortune 500 PR firm in Sacramento — where corporations hired my colleagues and me to shape individual perspectives using many of the techniques we’ll be examining this weekend.
My first meaningful exposure to nonviolent strategies in the libertarian context, however, came at a debate I attended in San Francisco in April of 2000. At the time I was working as the public affairs director for what might be called a Rothbardian, market-oriented think tank. The debate was hosted by a group calling itself Free Exchange, and the debaters were Mike Mayakis — who argued in favor of political action — and Samuel Edward Konkin III — who argued in favor of counter economic action.
Both Sam and Mike are no longer with us today, but I doubt that a day goes by when I don’t think about what was discussed at that debate. Sam argued that the two approaches are mutually-exclusive, you’re either with us, or with the politicians.
And maybe Sam is right, but since then I’ve tried to do both, and not just focus on political activity.
The political course advocated by both Mike and I suspect most libertarians — including me since around the time the Libertarian Party held its national convention in Salt Lake City in 1993 — has taken up most of the bandwidth in the liberty movement’s strategizing.
So that’s why I’m grateful that this weekend I have the opportunity to put aside the political scheming, fill a void in my activist toolkit, and hear about the impressive track record of peaceful methods to create social change from people like Brad Spangler, who is carrying on Sam Konkin’s work.
And “social change” has experienced something of a resurgence in the liberty movement in recent years. I recall hearing about an initiative to do “social change” research at the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia when I went to interview for a position there several years ago.
And, no, I’m not renouncing the Libertarian Party or my membership in it at this workshop, although I always remain open to being persuaded that I should.
I think that the Libertarian Party remains a vital part of the liberty movement, with the acknowledgement that it’s a flawed part, and oftentimes a counter-productive part.
But the Libertarian Party was a gateway through which I discovered the liberty movement and the work of the great libertarian thinkers that have brought me to where I am philosophically today.
And given the cultural bias favoring statism, I think that for the foreseeable future many Americans will not learn about the liberty movement and follow the path that I — and I suspect many others in this room — have followed but for the presence of the Libertarian Party.
This workshop has been organized around the vision Kevin put forward in an article titled “Creating a Free America” in November of last year. Here it is: “By January 1, 2025, every American who is determined to live free shall do so.”
Is the vision too small? Why just America? Well, Kevin answers that question on the web site, arguing that to do more would spread ourselves too thin.
Is the vision too big? For example, Stefan Molyneux of Freedomainradio has argued that it’s impossible for one person to make a meaningful difference at any organization level. Therefore, a libertarian should simply focus on separating oneself the tyranny that affects many of us at its most intimate, which results from our relationship with the members of our family of origin (or the acronym “F.O.O.,” for short)?
Or have the strategies to achieve the vision of a free America in our lifetime already been developed by people like Harry Browne, who wrote How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, and simply need to be more widely adopted?
I don’t know, and I suspect by the end of this workshop I still won’t know. But I hope to come closer to an answer that satisfies me by participating in this workshop.
Again, thank you for being here. Give yourself permission during the presentations to stand and stretch and walk around. The research I’ve seen on the attention span of the average juror says it really drops off after only a few minutes of inactivity.
So, I conclude my remarks by asking you to join me in an activity, and that’s thanking Kevin Van Horn for providing both the vision and organization for this weekend’s workshop. Thank you, Kevin.