With a state government shutdown now underway, the St. Paul Pioneer Press published an article characterizing Libertarians as opportunists relishing the shutdown while so many Minnesotans are inconvenienced. The newspaper used the headline “Libertarians see opportunity in Minnesota shutdown” despite statements by LPMN party officials to the contrary. The LPMN is issuing this rebuttal to set the record straight.

In a Pioneer Press article laden with negative bias, Libertarians were portrayed as seeing “benefits” from a shutdown and disparaged for our “rhetoric” advocating freewill, freedom of choice, and a genuinely free marketplace, which they claim has “made the Libertarian Party few friends in Minnesota and, at best, uneasy allies on the national stage”. In addition, journalist Frederick Melo blindsided the LPMN by never mentioning the Minnesota AIDS Project nor inquiring how it might be funded in lieu of government subsidies, although he offered the Project’s director a response to LPMN officials’ remarks. The article implies that Libertarians are callous and insensitive to those afflicted with AIDS. In truth, many Libertarians would strongly agree that helping those with AIDS is a worthy cause. We only disagree on the need for a more proper way to obtain funding. Charitable causes are more effectively and more ethically handled voluntarily through generous donors and caring volunteers, rather than coercively through taxes extracted from the public and administered by state bureaucrats.

Mr. Melo called it “Libertarianism 101” that people might have to rely on charity to “get by”, implying that this would be inadequate. But a more thorough investigation would have revealed that Americans are among the most charitible in the world, despite heavy layers of taxation by local, state, and federal governments. Libertarians ask: if each individual could pay less in taxes and keep more of their own money to donate as they saw fit, how much more could they contribute to their favorite cause or charity of their choice? Furthermore, if less wealth were drained from society by the government’s multitude of inefficient or misguided programs, allowing those resources to instead be retained in the productive economy to fuel creation of even more new wealth for all, how many more people could become self-sufficient and not need charity in the first place?

Unfortunately, the Pioneer Press neglected to discuss why we support the principles we do or how liberty-based solutions could work, but instead presented a distorted view of libertarianism. Such misleading journalism does a grave disservice to the newspaper’s readers. With widespread frustration toward the Democrats and Republicans and their failing policies, many would undoubtedly appreciate hearing about a fresh alternative. The media could better serve its readers by objectively presenting the facts and allowing people to decide for themselves, rather than trying to sway people how to think.

Did the Pioneer Press accurately represent the LPMN as seeing “opportunity” and “benefit” from the shutdown? Consider the correspondence leading up to their article, presented to you here in context, and decide for yourself!

The inquiry by Mr. Melo to the LPMN:

“I’m working on deadline on a piece about groups and causes that might benefit from a state government shutdown. Would the Libertarian Party benefit, in the sense that a shutdown might lend some credence to the idea that industry will keep chugging anyway regardless of whether government is there to regulate and support it?”

LPMN Executive Tylor Slinger responded to Mr. Melo by telephone:

“We think that the shutdown clearly illustrates how centralizing political power to an elite group places the rest of us at their mercy. While people’s immediate reaction will likely be based on their predispositions and their daily reliance on governmental services; the longer the shutdown lasts, the more opportunities each individual will have to find more reliable alternatives. If the shutdown continues without a visible end in sight, citizens are going to seek more long-term solutions. For example, cities whose budgets rely heavily on local government aid (LGA) could seek to create a more stable tax base that’s not as volatile as the [state] legislature’s whim. They may consider loosening zoning codes to allow for a more diverse mix of residential and businesses within their cities.”

Additionally, LPMN Vice Chair  replied to Mr. Melo by email:

“I do not think the state government shutdown, as it’s likely to unfold, will benefit the Libertarian Party.

“It depends which aspects of the government actually get shut down and which do not. I doubt that people will be so pleased with more potholes due to deferred road maintenance that they’ll feel inclined to join the Libertarian Party. The state may be shutting down their operations in various areas, but they will not be relinquishing their control of those areas. For example, if someone needs a construction permit or a fishing license, they will be unable to get it, yet the state won’t allow them to go without that permit or license, causing real inconvenience. Similarly, it will be an inconvenience if road construction is halted or light rail is shut down.

“This is the problem when government is allowed to dominate and monopolize major parts of the economy such as roads and passenger rail; there are no alternatives for people to turn to when squabbling politicians cause a shutdown. By contrast, if a supermarket has a dispute between management and labor, and a strike results, its customers can go to a competitor, impacting that company’s revenue. This impact provides a strong incentive for the two sides to quickly resolve their differences. But government has no such incentive, in part because it faces no competition. In fact, politicians may prolong the dispute if they think they can blame the other side.

“Besides, it will not be a complete shutdown: the state won’t stop collecting its gasoline tax or state income tax withholding. Thus, the government will still be extracting revenue from society, but without returning anything back.

“If especially wasteful or unnecessary departments undergo layoffs, that will help the public over the long-term due to the savings. (Although that’s generally not how government works; they tend to shut down the most necessary areas first, hoping to induce public outrage and show the “need” for higher taxes.) Similarly, if the shutdown led to the state divesting its assets and services, returning them to the marketplace, then the public would also see a long-term benefit from the choice, competition, and innovation that would result. If the people understood why liberty and markets work better than a government monopoly, they would realize that the principles we advocate are being vindicated, and that would benefit the Libertarian Party. […]

“But this shutdown is unlikely to lead to the changes that are truly needed. It will be a temporary shutdown, so the inconveniences will outweigh the benefits in the public’s perception.”

For direct comparison, and because the Pioneer Press’s story may soon be hidden within their members-only area, here is their article in its entirety:

Libertarians see opportunity in Minnesota shutdown

By Frederick Melo Updated: 07/03/2011 11:12:25 PM CDT

Less government is good government, as far as Tylor Slinger is concerned.

As a member of the executive board of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota, the resident of St. Paul’s Highland Park sees benefits in the state government shutdown.

In Slinger’s eyes, this isn’t “tea party” radicalism or anarchist rhetoric. This is Libertarianism 101: Taxpayers accustomed to receiving state support, be it child care subsidies or visits from a social worker, would have to rely on friends, family, churches and nonprofits to get by.

“We think that the shutdown clearly illustrates how centralizing political power to an elite group places the rest of us at their mercy,” said Slinger, 24, who works as a communications specialist at a bank. Slinger is also running for a St. Paul City Council seat.

“While people’s immediate reaction will likely be based on … their daily reliance on governmental services, the longer the shutdown lasts, the more opportunities each individual will have to find more reliable alternatives.”

With more than 20,000 state employees suddenly finding themselves out of work, such statements have made the Libertarian Party few friends in Minnesota and, at best, uneasy allies on the national stage.

The party – which formed in Colorado in the early 1970s against the backdrop of the Vietnam War – preaches a political gospel based on small government, minimal taxes and little regulation or oversight over individual choices and personal freedoms.

At first blush, that might sound like the sort of “small government” outlook shared by conservative Republicans. Libertarians, however, never have had an easy time fitting their rhetoric into the intellectual confines or social leanings of either of the major parties.

Take, for instance, the state party’s official stance on “abortion and population,” bullet item No. 6 on its 46-point platform, available at lpmn.org. It effectively calls for the government to take no action whatsoever for or against abortion rights.

Unlike Slinger, Amy Brugh, a public policy director with the Minnesota AIDS Project in Minneapolis, sees no benefit to a shutdown whatsoever. Her largely state- and federally funded programs are assets to taxpayers, she said, not hindrances.

As a result of the shutdown, “47 of our 57 employees are either laid off full time or reduced time without benefits,” Brugh said. “It means that three of our programs are completely closed down, so clients won’t have access to their case managers, or to transportation to get them to medical appointments or to the pharmacy, or for benefits counseling.”

Those include specialized services that an AIDS patient can’t just lean on friends and family for, Brugh said. And without the right care, each one of those clients could end up in an emergency room, with taxpayers footing the lion’s share of the bill.

“A Libertarian not wanting to pay tax dollars should actually be in favor of our programs,” Brugh said.

S.L. Malleck, the state Libertarian Party’s vice chair, doesn’t expect to win many converts during the government shutdown, which probably wouldn’t last long enough to extricate taxpayers from what he sees as over-reliance on government.

“The state may be shutting down their operations in various areas, but they will not be relinquishing their control of those areas,” Malleck said.

Frederick Melo can be reached at 651-228-2172.

UPDATE 7/18/2011: The LPMN has been made aware that the final article which appeared in the Pioneer Press was severely edited from Mr. Melo’s original submittal. The original longer version was considerably more representative of Libertarians’ views, and did not include the misleading headline. We have revised this rebuttal accordingly. Mr. Melo’s original version, as submitted to the Pioneer Press’s senior editorial staff, can be seen here.

Concerned about the relentless expansion of government control and the erosion of individual liberty? Consider joining and becoming active in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. Libertarians stand in support of liberty on all issues, all the time. Libertarianism is a philosophical and political movement promoting individual freedom, voluntary interaction, genuine free markets, and peace.