As I write this, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire is getting international press for glorifying the potential assassination of Kamala Harris:
To be fair, the LPNH also called for the death of:
Socialist protestors:
DHS Agents:
Congress:
Many governors:
And DonaldTrump:
Are such death threats justified?
Libertarians want to live in a world where coercion is reduced as much as a possible. According to the libertarian ethical heuristic called the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), initiating force against someone is almost never justified. But defending oneself against violent attack--with violence, if need be--is justified.
However, the NAP is not the only criteria that must be must, IMO. I think there are at least three additional criteria that must be met before violence is justified:
The target of violence has forfeited their right to peaceful co-existence by initiating violence themselves.
The violence must not excessively harm innocent bystanders.
The violence must actually increase liberty in the long run.
There is no more effective action other than violence.
In my view, only the first criteria has been met in the case of Kamala Harris.
Harris has initiated violence against many innocent people.
For example, Michael Lacey, co-founder of Backpage, is currently serving a five year prison term due to a prosecution that Harris helped launch against him. As Lacey is 78 years old, he will likely die in prison.
Lacey's business partner, James Larkin, committed suicide rather than face trial.
The legal team led by Harris kidnapped and caged Larkin and Lacey on the grounds that they were hosting escort ads on Backpage.com.
Libertarians believe that women should be free to have sex with whom they please, even if they do so for money. Therefore, imprisoning Lacey and Larkin for hosting escort ads is utterly immoral.
If, as a private citizen, Harris had kidnapped and caged a couple of old men in her basement she would rightfully be seen as a violent monster.
And who would question the use of violence against her to free the men she held captive in her dungeon?
To libertarians, that Harris kidnapped and caged Lacey and Larkin as an agent of the state makes no ethical difference.
And the Backpage case is just one small example of the unjustified violence committed by state actors.
The US government has killed millions of people, and wasted trillions of dollars. Millions more have suffered and died unnecessarily due to excessive regulation.
But would assassinating Harris result in a more free world?
If someone took out the VP, all of the following would remain unchanged:
Lacey's imprisonment.
The political system that resulted in Harris in a position of power.
The anti-sex worker / anti-trafficking laws on the books.
The stupidity, ignorance, and irrationality of the median voter.
The government school system that indoctrinates children to excuse violence committed by government agents.
It's that cultural milieu that libertarians have to change, if we want to be left alone.
By concentrating our forces in New Hampshire (and USVI), libertarians can change that milieu, and win our political goals (albeit slowly) in the relatively bloodless political arena.
But threatening to murder politicians, or expropriate, deport, or murder our neighbors based on their political beliefs makes it much harder for libertarians to win office.
Libertarians are outnumbered at least 10:1 by authoritarians, even in New Hampshire. Libertarian politicians can punch well above our numbers, because most voters are ill informed and apathetic, and will go along with whatever political faction has the most energy.
But if libertarians persist in making violent threats, they will trigger the immune system of the apathetic masses.
Who would vote to elect people who threaten to deport or kill you if you disagree with them politically?
Moreover, if a libertarian did take out Harris, God forbid, it would only make her a martyr. The mainstream press (almost wholly controlled by progressives) would air endless encomiums to her and her stupid ideas. And her passing could well open up a path to the presidency for someone who is just as soulless and evil as Harris, but more competent. Gavin Newsom, perhaps.
And once libertarians are labeled as a terrorists, the government will bring down the full force of the "War on Terror" legal apparatus on libertarians.
Libertarians will be banned from travel.
Merely donating to the Libertarian Party will be seen as a RICO Act violation.
When we're arrested, we'll be spirited to secret prisons and tortured.
To directly attack state actors right now is suicide.
Instead of scaring our neighbors, and taunting a military force 10 times larger than our own, libertarians need to concentrate our forces. There are ~15 million libertarians in the US, enough to create two Israels or four Utahs. If 2% (300 K) of them moved to New Hampshire, we'd outnumber either major party alone. If 4% (600 K) moved there, we'd outnumber both of them combined.
Only with such numbers will libertarians be be able to create and defend a refuge of freedom and sanity.